R v Khalifa Mughal & Anor

R v Khalifa Mughal & Anor

The Court held that the trial judge did not err in refusing submissions of no case to answer or in refusing to stay the indictment. There was sufficient evidence for the jury to consider joint enterprise and drug supply, and any inconsistencies or missing evidence did not render the trial unfair. Judicial directions adequately addressed any prejudice from delay or lost evidence. Extensions of time and applications for leave to appeal were refused as the proposed grounds lacked merit.

Parties
Applicant: Khalifa Mughal; Applicant: Waseem Adalat; Respondent: Rex
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 May 2025
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
applications for extension of time and leave to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Sexual Offences, Rape, Perverting the Course of Justice, Abuse of Process, Joint Enterprise, Loss of Evidence, Delay in Prosecution
Criminal Law Sexual Offences Rape Perverting the Course of Justice Abuse of Process Joint Enterprise Loss of Evidence Delay in Prosecution

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 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Khalifa Mughal

Applicant

Waseem Adalat

Applicant

Rex

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in refusing submissions of no case to answer on counts 8 and 25 against Khalifa Mughal
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge erred in refusing to stay the indictment against Waseem Adalat for abuse of process due to loss of passport and delay
  3. 3 Whether the convictions are unsafe due to evidential insufficiency or procedural unfairness

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the trial judge did not err in refusing submissions of no case to answer or in refusing to stay the indictment. There was sufficient evidence for the jury to consider joint enterprise and drug supply, and any inconsistencies or missing evidence did not render the trial unfair. Judicial directions adequately addressed any prejudice from delay or lost evidence. Extensions of time and applications for leave to appeal were refused as the proposed grounds lacked merit.

Court Disposition

applications for extension of time and leave to appeal refused