FO, R. v [2025] EWCA Crim 1616 (21 November 2025)

Neutral Citation Number: [2025] EWCA Crim 1616 CASE NO 202400469/B4 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL CRIMINAL DIVISION ON APPEAL FROM THE CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT MS RECORDER BAL DHALIWAL-THOMAS T20237213 Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2A 2LL 21 November 2025 B e f o r e : LORD JUSTICE LEWIS MRS JUSTICE CUTTS DBE HER HONOUR JUDGE MORELAND (Sitting as a Judge of the CACD) ____________________ REX - v - F. O. ____________________ Computer Aided Transcript of Epiq Europe Ltd, Lower Ground Floor, 46 Chancery Lane, London, WC2A 1JE Tel No: 020 7404 1400; Email: rcj@epiqglobal.co.uk (Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) ____________________ NON-COUNSEL APPLICATION ____________________ HTML VERSION OF JUDGMENT ____________________ Crown Copyright © This Transcript is Crown Copyright. It may not be reproduced in whole or in part other than in accordance with relevant licence or with the express consent of the Authority. All rights are reserved. LORD JUSTICE LEWIS: The provisions of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 apply to this offence. Under those provisions, where an allegation has been made that a sexual offence has been committed against a person, no matter relating to that person shall, during that person's lifetime, be included in any publication if it is likely to lead members of the public to identify that person as the victim of that offence. This prohibition applies unless waived or lifted in accordance with section 3 of the Act. On 21 June 2023 in the Central Criminal Court the applicant, whom we shall refer to as "FO", was convicted of sexual offences against his stepson when he was a young boy and his biological daughter when she was a young child. The applicant was convicted of five offences of indecent assault on a male person which began when his stepson was seven years old and occurred at various stages until he was 10. One offence involved the applicant performing oral sex on the boy when he was just seven years old. The other offences involved him placing his penis between the boy's naked buttocks as he lay on the floor. The offences against his own daughter included three offences of rape on multiple occasions of a child under 13, three assaults by penetration, six offences of sexual assault, two of causing a child under 13 to engage in sexual activity and one other offence. It is not necessary to set out the details of the offending, save to note that it began when she was very young indeed and continued until she was about 17. The central issue for the jury was whether the sexual activity had occurred as alleged. The stepson and the daughter gave evidence. They each described what had happened to them. The applicant gave evidence and said it did not happen. He said that there had been disputes about money within the family and the allegations had been fabricated. The jury were sure that the complainants were telling the truth. They convicted the applicant of most of the offences with which he had been charged. The applicant applies for leave to appeal against conviction and an extension of time of approximately 198 days. We see no good reason for the delay and we would be minded to refuse the extension of time application. However we have considered the grounds of appeal to see if they had merit. If they had merit we might have been prepared to extend time. The first ground concerns a word in Farsi in a text message which the applicant applied to his daughter. The issue was whether the word meant "owner" or whether it had some other more benign meaning. The judge explained the applicant's case on the meaning of the word to the jury. It was at best a peripheral issue in the trial. This ground does not arguably affect the safety of the conviction. Grounds 2 and 3 relate to matters that occurred during the trial. The judge had asked the barrister not to cross-examine using a particular tone. There was also a delay of about a day for other reasons. A new interpreter had to be instructed. None of those matters affect the safety of the trial or the conviction. All the matters were dealt with during the trial. The fact is that the directions and the summing-up were full and fair, setting out the prosecution case and the defendant's case. The jury believed the prosecution witnesses, they did not believe the applicant. These grounds disclose no arguable flaw in the trial. Ground 4 is a criticism that the applicant's barrister did not explain his case properly to the jury. The barrister's closing speech lasted three hours. It is clear on reading the summing-up that the applicant's case was put fairly to the jury. This ground is not arguable. Ground 5 is that there was no DNA evidence. That is correct. But there does not have to be DNA evidence before a conviction can be obtained. The question is whether the jury were sure on the evidence they heard that the applicant was guilty. They were. For those reasons, none of the grounds disclose an arguable ground for challenging the conviction. We refuse leave to appeal and we refuse the extension of time.  BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII