Khan, R. v [2009] EWCA Crim 86 (28 January 2009)

Khan, R. v [2009] EWCA Crim 86 (28 January 2009)

The trial judge was correct to refuse admission of CS's hearsay statement as she was available to give evidence and the statement contained inaccuracies best explored in oral testimony; the judge was entitled to admit AW's evidence as it was relevant to the prosecution case and rebutted the defence; the sentence of imprisonment for public protection was justified by the risk posed and the notional determinate sentence was not manifestly excessive.

Citation
[2009] EWCA Crim 86
Parties
Respondent: Regina; Appellant: Mohammed Khan
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 January 2009
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Rape, Admissibility of Evidence, Hearsay, Imprisonment for Public Protection, Witness Intimidation, Sentencing
Criminal Law Rape Admissibility of Evidence Hearsay Imprisonment for Public Protection Witness Intimidation 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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Respondent

Mohammed Khan

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in refusing to admit hearsay evidence from a defence witness (CS) under section 114(1)(d) Criminal Justice Act 2003
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge erred in admitting prosecution evidence from AW regarding prior use of counterfeit notes and use of prostitutes
  3. 3 Whether the sentence of imprisonment for public protection (IPP) was justified and whether the notional determinate sentence was excessive

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge was correct to refuse admission of CS's hearsay statement as she was available to give evidence and the statement contained inaccuracies best explored in oral testimony; the judge was entitled to admit AW's evidence as it was relevant to the prosecution case and rebutted the defence; the sentence of imprisonment for public protection was justified by the risk posed and the notional determinate sentence was not manifestly excessive.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Conviction appeal dismissed
  • Renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence dismissed