Naaim, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

On 23 August 2024, at the Crown Court at The City, the Appellant (then aged 28) was convicted in his absence of three counts of rape of a child under 13 contrary to section 5(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (counts 2–4 on a five-count indictment). A Co-defendant pleaded guilty to a like offence on count 1. The Appellant was later sentenced on 7 February 2025 to an extended sentence on one count (total 16 years and 5 months comprising 14 years and 5 months custody and 2 years extended licence) and determinate concurrent sentences on the other counts.

The core factual narrative in the trial judgment is: the Victim, aged 12 at the relevant time, ran away from home and was located in a hotel in The City on 24 October 2020 in a room with the Co-defendant. Officers found the Appellant's passport used to book rooms and evidence the rooms had been used. The Victim initially refused to cooperate; CCTV showed movements between corridors and rooms. Weeks later the Victim became pregnant; a termination was performed and DNA from the foetus matched the Co-defendant. The Appellant was arrested on 27 January 2021 for procuration; he was not interviewed for rape at that time because he was eliminated from the foetal DNA. In 2023 the Victim cooperated, identified both men and said she had intercourse with both and that the Appellant had raped her. The Appellant was arrested and interviewed on 5 January 2024 and denied the allegations. The Appellant failed to attend the trial on 19 August 2024 despite prior warning; the trial proceeded in his absence with counsel representing him and he was convicted.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the trial should have proceeded in the Appellant's absence (including the adequacy of reasons given for non-attendance and credibility of asserted threats).
2. Whether the Victim was coerced into making allegations against the Appellant.
3. Whether evidence of a sexually transmitted infection in the Victim undermines the prosecution case.
4. Whether missing or destroyed CCTV (and other investigative decisions) rendered the trial unfair.
5. Whether the indictment was defective or invalid.
6. Whether investigative failings (loss of material, lack of further forensic sampling) or errors in the summing-up undermined the safety of conviction.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The trial should not have proceeded in his absence because he failed to attend due to severe threats; he now seeks to rely on that new evidence and contends absence prevented him from giving his defence to the jury.
• The Victim was coerced into making allegations.
• Evidence of a sexually transmitted infection in the Victim demonstrates inconsistency with the Appellant having had sex with her.
• Important CCTV footage was unavailable at trial and investigative failures undermined the fairness of the trial.
• The indictment was defective or invalid; there were other procedural and investigative flaws amounting to unfairness.

Respondent's Arguments

• The Single Judge and trial judge correctly applied relevant legal principles when deciding the trial could proceed in the Appellant's absence; the asserted threats were not previously raised, the account given at cause hearing was not credible, and the Appellant did not report threats to police or solicitors.
• There is no credible evidence the Victim was coerced; the assertion is unarguable.
• STI evidence disclosed showed a chlamydia positive test in 2022 (after the offences); even if present earlier it would not resolve whether intercourse took place and therefore is not decisive.
• CCTV seized was destroyed when the Victim declined to cooperate; it showed common parts only and would not have assisted the defence given admitted presence of the parties at the hotel.
• The indictment was valid and the Appellant was properly committed to Crown Court; earlier refusal to charge resulted from the Victim's non-cooperation at that time, not an acquittal.
• Investigation omissions (e.g., further forensic sampling) would not have proven or disproven the central issue; the summing-up and directions were fair and in accordance with law.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court of Appeal reviewed the chronology and the trial judge's written ruling. Key points of analysis were:

• The Appellant had been warned at the plea and trial preparation hearing that failure to attend could result in trial in absence and was on bail subject to residence conditions and an electronically monitored curfew.
• The Appellant breached bail conditions, ceased contact with solicitors, failed to attend a pre-trial review and then failed to attend trial. Counsel nevertheless represented him throughout and had full instructions.
• Allegations of threats were first raised only after arrest on warrant; the Appellant's surety gave vague evidence of threats which the judge found not credible. The Appellant had not previously reported threats to police or to solicitors.
• The trial judge applied the principles in R v Jones correctly, directed the jury that absence was not evidence of guilt and ensured the trial process remained fair. The Appellant's counsel cross‑examined witnesses and challenged the prosecution case.
• The court rejected other grounds on their merits: coercion allegations lacked credible support; STI evidence (chlamydia in 2022) post-dated the offences and would not determine whether intercourse occurred; lost CCTV was of common parts and known to defence, and would not have assisted; alleged investigative omissions would not have established or negated sexual activity given admitted co-presence of the parties; challenges to credibility and to the summing-up were unpersuasive as the summing-up adhered to agreed legal directions and the jury were properly instructed to assess credibility and inconsistencies.

Holding and Implications

REFUSED

Direct effect: The applications for leave to appeal and the additional grounds advanced were refused and the convictions and sentences are upheld. The court found the trial was fair, the decision to proceed in absence was correct, and none of the grounds undermined the safety of conviction. The opinion does not purport to establish a new legal precedent beyond applying existing law; no broader legal innovation was announced.

This summary is prepared from the provided opinion. Company A certified the transcript in the original document.