Sheikh, R. v [2025] EWCA Crim 566 (26 March 2025)

Sheikh, R. v [2025] EWCA Crim 566 (26 March 2025)

The trial judge did not err in admitting evidence of civil judgments as they were relevant to motive and chronology but not determinative of guilt; there was ample circumstantial evidence for the case to go to the jury; the directions to the jury on standards of proof and Article 10 rights were adequate; the sentence was justified given the high culpability, aggravating features, and harm, and the principle of totality was not breached.

Citation
[2025] EWCA Crim 566
Parties
Prosecution: Rex; Applicant: Javed Sheikh
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 March 2025
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Renewed Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
renewed application for permission to appeal against conviction and sentence dismissed
Legal Topics
Stalking, Admissibility of Civil Judgments in Criminal Proceedings, Freedom of Expression, Sentencing, Mental Disorder and Sentencing, Principle of Totality
Criminal Law Stalking Admissibility of Civil Judgments in Criminal Proceedings Freedom of Expression Sentencing Mental Disorder and Sentencing Principle of Totality

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rex

Prosecution

Javed Sheikh

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Renewed Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in admitting civil judgments into evidence in the criminal trial
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge erred in refusing a submission of no case to answer
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's Article 10 ECHR rights were breached

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge did not err in admitting evidence of civil judgments as they were relevant to motive and chronology but not determinative of guilt; there was ample circumstantial evidence for the case to go to the jury; the directions to the jury on standards of proof and Article 10 rights were adequate; the sentence was justified given the high culpability, aggravating features, and harm, and the principle of totality was not breached.

Court Disposition

renewed application for permission to appeal against conviction and sentence dismissed

Orders

  • Conviction stands
  • Sentence of 8 years' imprisonment stands