Mohammed v R

Mohammed v R

The fresh evidence did not raise a reasonable doubt as to the applicant's guilt due to significant reliability concerns, inconsistencies, and procedural defects. The sentence imposed was technically unlawful as section 236A did not apply; the correct sentence was substituted.

Parties
Appellant: Khaldoun Mohammed; Respondent: R
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 March 2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeal against conviction refused; appeal against sentence allowed in part
Legal Topics
Rape, Fresh Evidence, Appeal Procedure, Sentencing
Criminal Law Rape Fresh Evidence Appeal Procedure Sentencing

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Khaldoun Mohammed

Appellant

R

Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether fresh evidence calls into question the safety of the conviction for rape
  2. 2 Whether the sentence imposed was lawful under the relevant statutory provisions

Ratio Decidendi

The fresh evidence did not raise a reasonable doubt as to the applicant's guilt due to significant reliability concerns, inconsistencies, and procedural defects. The sentence imposed was technically unlawful as section 236A did not apply; the correct sentence was substituted.

Court Disposition

Appeal against conviction refused; appeal against sentence allowed in part

Orders

  • Permission to appeal against conviction refused
  • Fresh evidence not admitted