Busharat & Anor, R. v [2024] EWCA Crim 1496 (10 October 2024)

Busharat & Anor, R. v [2024] EWCA Crim 1496 (10 October 2024)

The defects identified in Sabir's case regarding jury directions and identification evidence did not apply to Basharat because the identification evidence against him was significantly stronger. The judge's directions on identification and other matters were sufficient. In Hussain's case, the issues of consent and the submission of no case to answer were properly left to the jury, and the judge's directions were thorough. No arguable grounds of appeal were established for either applicant.

Citation
[2024] EWCA Crim 1496
Parties
Prosecution: Rex; Applicant: Hussan Syed Basharat; Applicant: Baber Hussain
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Renewed Application for Leave to Appeal Conviction, Out of Time
Outcome
applications for leave to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Rape, Sexual Offences, Identification Evidence, Jury Directions, Consent, Grooming, No Case to Answer, Appeal Out of Time
Criminal Law Rape Sexual Offences Identification Evidence Jury Directions Consent Grooming No Case to Answer +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rex

Prosecution

Hussan Syed Basharat

Applicant

Baber Hussain

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Renewed Application for Leave to Appeal Conviction, Out of Time

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge's directions on identification and evidence were inadequate in Basharat's case
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge should have stopped the case or upheld a submission of no case to answer in Hussain's case
  3. 3 Whether the judge's directions on consent were inadequate in Hussain's case

Ratio Decidendi

The defects identified in Sabir's case regarding jury directions and identification evidence did not apply to Basharat because the identification evidence against him was significantly stronger. The judge's directions on identification and other matters were sufficient. In Hussain's case, the issues of consent and the submission of no case to answer were properly left to the jury, and the judge's directions were thorough. No arguable grounds of appeal were established for either applicant.

Court Disposition

applications for leave to appeal refused

Orders

  • Leave to appeal refused for both applicants
  • Applications for extension of time refused