Hanif, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

The provisions of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 apply to the offences in this case, prohibiting publication of identifying information about victims unless waived. The three appellants—referred to as Hanif, Nasser, and Ali—were convicted of rape at a Crown Court trial before Judge Phillips KC and sentenced to terms of imprisonment ranging from seven and a half to nine and a half years. Each appellant sought to renew their application for leave to appeal against their convictions after refusal by a single judge.

The convictions arose from connected trials involving allegations of sexual exploitation and rape of two female victims, referred to as C1 and C2, during their teenage years and, in C2's case, continuing into early adulthood. The offences occurred in the Dewsbury and Wakefield areas. The appellants denied the allegations, with Hanif asserting mistaken identity or malicious complaint, and Nasser and Ali denying involvement. The jury rejected these defences and convicted the appellants.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the judge erred in handling a juror's note concerning a possible contact between a juror and Hanif, potentially warranting discharge of the jury.
2. Whether Nasser's conviction on one count of rape was inconsistent with his acquittals on related counts.
3. Whether Ali's conviction was unsafe due to alleged inconsistencies, insufficient identification evidence, failure to give evidence, absence of separate trials, and risk of prejudice or bias.
4. Whether loss of time orders should be made against any of the appellants for renewing unmeritorious applications.

Arguments of the Parties

Hanif's Arguments

• The judge failed to deal fairly and properly with a jury note reporting a potential contact between a juror and Hanif, warranting discharge of the jury.
• Alternatively, the judge should have questioned the juror further regarding the note.

Nasser's Arguments

• The conviction on one count of rape was inconsistent with acquittals on two related counts.

Ali's Arguments

• The conviction on one count was inconsistent with acquittal on another count.
• He did not give evidence or call witnesses on one count, which he would have done if tried alone.
• The identification evidence was insufficient for conviction on that count.
• Separate trials should have been held to avoid prejudice and bias.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court carefully examined the juror's note concerning a possible contact with Hanif and the subsequent police investigation, including CCTV review, which found no improper conduct. The judge's decision to inform the jury that nothing untoward had occurred and to continue the trial was deemed appropriate. The court rejected the argument for discharging the jury or further questioning the juror, concluding that the juror was acting properly in notifying the judge and that the concern was unsubstantiated.

Regarding Nasser's appeal, the court distinguished between the acquittals on counts relating to C2 aged 13-14 and the conviction on a count when she was 18 years old, noting that the jury carefully assessed identification and evidence separately for each count. The court found no inconsistency in the verdicts.

In Ali's case, the court noted differences in evidence between counts and accepted that the jury was properly directed to consider each count separately. The absence of separate trials and Ali's decision not to give evidence did not render the conviction unsafe. The court found no evidence of unfairness or prejudice related to the juror's note or other matters.

On the issue of loss of time orders, the court considered the appellants' grounds and the single judge's prior decisions. It accepted that Hanif's renewal was on counsel's advice and did not amount to an abuse of process. The court found that Nasser and Ali largely repeated previous grounds and declined to impose loss of time orders on any appellant.

Holding and Implications

The court REFUSED the renewed applications for leave to appeal by Hanif, Nasser, and Ali, finding no reason to doubt the safety of their convictions.

No loss of time orders were made against any appellant. The decision directly affects the parties by upholding their convictions and sentences. The court did not establish any new legal precedent beyond applying established principles to the facts of this case.