R v Imran Khan

R v Imran Khan

The trial judge was entitled to admit the bad character evidence as it was relevant to the credibility of the complainant and the appellant's propensity, and its probative value outweighed any prejudicial effect. The conviction was safe as the complainant's evidence was consistent and supported by other witnesses, and the sentence imposed was within the appropriate range, with no error in principle or manifest excess.

Parties
Respondent: R; Appellant: Imran Khan
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 December 2022
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeal against conviction and sentence dismissed
Legal Topics
Sexual Offences, Bad Character Evidence, Sentencing, Appeal Procedure
Criminal Law Sexual Offences Bad Character Evidence Sentencing Appeal Procedure

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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

R

Respondent

Imran Khan

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in admitting bad character evidence under section 101(1)(d) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003
  2. 2 Whether the conviction was safe given the alleged inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence
  3. 3 Whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive or wrong in principle

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge was entitled to admit the bad character evidence as it was relevant to the credibility of the complainant and the appellant's propensity, and its probative value outweighed any prejudicial effect. The conviction was safe as the complainant's evidence was consistent and supported by other witnesses, and the sentence imposed was within the appropriate range, with no error in principle or manifest excess.

Court Disposition

Appeal against conviction and sentence dismissed

Orders

  • Conviction upheld
  • Sentence of 18 months' imprisonment affirmed