Yasen, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

This case involves the application of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992, which prohibits publication of any matter likely to identify a victim of a sexual offence during their lifetime. The Appellant, aged 39, was convicted on 7 February 2023 at the Crown Court at Leeds of one count of trafficking within the UK for sexual exploitation and three counts of aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring rape. The Appellant was sentenced on 4 April 2023 to 15 years' imprisonment.

The appeal raises three grounds: (1) that the trial judge should have allowed a no case to answer submission; (2) that evidence of a previous incorrect identification by the complainant was wrongly excluded; and (3) that the judge failed properly to direct the jury regarding confusion about the "Red Shop," a location referenced in evidence. Permission to appeal was granted only on Ground 1, with the possibility to seek permission on Grounds 2 and 3 at the hearing.

The case arose from Operation Tourway, investigating grooming, sex trafficking, and sexual abuse of three young women between 2002 and 2012 by a group of Kurdish/Iraqi men in South and West Yorkshire. Several co-accused were convicted or acquitted in related trials.

The complainant relevant to this appeal ("Complainant 1") was born in 1990, and from about age 13 was vulnerable due to foster care, truancy, and substance misuse. She met two Kurdish men, referred to as 'Alan' and 'Sergei', and was raped by them and others at a location in Dewsbury. She described being taken by a man (alleged to be the Appellant) to flats in Wakefield and Sheffield where she was sexually abused. The Appellant denied the allegations and disputed the complainant’s identification of him as the driver involved.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the trial judge erred in refusing the Appellant's submission of no case to answer based on alleged weaknesses in the identification evidence.
2. Whether the trial judge erred in excluding evidence of a previous incorrect identification by the complainant involving a different suspect.
3. Whether the trial judge failed properly to direct the jury regarding the complainant's confusion about the "Red Shop" and its impact on the reliability of her evidence.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The identification evidence was poor, inconsistent, and unsupported, warranting a no case to answer ruling.
• The complainant’s previous incorrect identification of another individual should have been admitted to demonstrate potential unreliability.
• The judge failed adequately to address the complainant’s confusion about the Red Shop, which was argued to undermine her identification evidence.
• Specific points included the complainant’s intoxication during the relevant period, errors regarding the Appellant’s height, and the timing of the Red Shop’s opening.

Crown's Arguments

• The identification evidence was sufficiently strong and supported by circumstantial evidence to be left to the jury.
• The complainant had ample opportunity to observe the Appellant during the relevant events, negating the suggestion of a fleeting glance or inherently unreliable identification.
• The previous incorrect identification was irrelevant as it involved a different suspect in unrelated circumstances.
• The judge properly directed the jury on the complainant’s confusion about the Red Shop, which did not materially affect the reliability of her identification.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court carefully analysed the identification evidence, noting that the complainant positively identified the Appellant in a VIPER procedure despite a 12-year gap. The court rejected arguments that the similarity of faces undermined the identification, reasoning instead that it demonstrated a properly conducted procedure. The complainant’s description of the driver as Kurdish and in his early twenties matched the Appellant’s background and age at the time.

The court also found circumstantial evidence supporting the identification, including the Appellant’s proximity to locations in Dewsbury, Wakefield, and Sheffield where abuse occurred. Although the complainant’s evidence contained some inconsistencies (height, confusion about the Red Shop), these were matters for the jury’s assessment of weight rather than grounds to withdraw the case.

Regarding Ground 2, the court reasoned that a prior mistaken identification involving a different suspect in different circumstances was irrelevant and rightly excluded. The court emphasized that juries are routinely directed that honest witnesses can make mistakes, without the need for specific evidence on unrelated identifications.

On Ground 3, the court concluded that the judge had adequately directed the jury on the complainant’s confusion about the Red Shop, including noting admitted confusion and inconsistencies. The judge’s summing-up was deemed balanced and sufficient without unnecessary repetition or elaboration.

Holding and Implications

The court DISMISSED the appeal on Ground 1, concluding that the judge correctly refused the no case to answer submission and that the identification evidence was properly left to the jury. The court refused permission to appeal on Grounds 2 and 3, finding them unarguable.

The decision confirms the high threshold for overturning a judge’s ruling on no case to answer in identification cases, especially where identification is supported by circumstantial evidence and the judge has given a balanced summing-up. No new legal precedent was established; the ruling affirms established principles on identification evidence, admissibility of prior mistaken identifications, and the scope of jury directions.