WARNING: reporting restrictions may apply to the contents transcribed in this document, particularly if the case concerned a sexual offence or involved a child. Reporting restrictions prohibit the publication of the applicable information to the public or any section of the public, in writing, in a broadcast or by means of the internet, including social media. Anyone who receives a copy of this transcript is responsible in law for making sure that applicable restrictions are not breached. A person who breaches a reporting restriction is liable to a fine and/or imprisonment. For guidance on whether reporting restrictions apply, and to what information, ask at the court office or take legal advice.
This Transcript is Crown Copyright. It may not be reproduced in whole or in part other than in accordance with relevant licence or with the express consent of the Authority. All rights are reserved.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL CRIMINAL DIVISION ON APPEAL FROM THE CROWN COURT AT BIRMINGHAM (HHJ HENDERSON/HHJ KUBIK KC] [T20227361] CASE NO 202304236/B4 [2025] EWCA Crim 583 |
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London
WC2A 2LL
Before:
LORD JUSTICE SINGH
MR JUSTICE GOSS
MR JUSTICE CHOUDHURY
REX
V
ASIM ABDULRASUL
__________
Computer Aided Transcript of Epiq Europe Ltd,
Lower Ground, 46 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1JE
Tel No: 020 7404 1400; Email: rcj@epiqglobal.co.uk (Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
_________
NON-COUNSEL APPLICATION
_________
JUDGMENT
(APPROVED)
MR JUSTICE CHOUDHURY:
On 9 January 2023, in the Crown Court at Birmingham (HHJ Henderson presiding), the applicant pleaded guilty to having an article with a blade or point (count 2) and wounding with intent (count 3). On 10 July 2023, in the same court, before HHJ Kubik KC, the applicant (then aged 47) was convicted of attempted murder (count 1) and controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate or family relationship (count 4). On 15 December 2023, he was sentenced on count 1, to an extended sentenced of 29 years comprising a custodial term of 24 years and an extended licence period of 5 years. He received a concurrent sentence of 12 months and 2 years on counts 2 and 4 respectively.
The applicant seeks to renew his application for leave to appeal out of time against conviction such leave having been refused by the Single Judge.
The factual background may be briefly summarised as follows. The complainant was the applicant’s wife. They married in Morocco in 2018 and the complainant moved to the United Kingdom in November 2018 having obtained a spousal visa.
The Crown’s case was that the applicant became controlling and coercive towards the complainant after she moved to the United Kingdom. He controlled her access to money, giving a limited allowance of £20 per month, controlled who she could see and what she could wear. In August 2019, the applicant assaulted the complainant when he had seen her speaking to another man at their place of work (an Amazon warehouse). There was a further assault by the applicant at their home in the days that followed (count 4).
The complainant moved out of the address and into a refuge. The applicant threatened to kill her and send her head to her parents. The complainant sought an interim non-molestation order, which was granted, but she did not apply for a full order because, by then, she believed she was no longer at risk; she was living separately from the applicant; had instigated divorce proceedings and was in a new relationship.
The final hearing for the divorce proceedings was to be heard in Birmingham Family Court on 16 August 2022. CCTV footage from that day showed the applicant as he waited for the complainant outside the court building for a period of approximately 30 minutes. When the complainant approached, the applicant immediately chased her through the street. As he ran, he produced a knife and, when he caught up with the complainant, he lunged at her with the knife on at least eight occasions. All of these blows were to her head and upper body (counts 1 and 2). It was described as a “frenzied” attack. Members of the public intervened to bring the attack to an end. A cafe owner pulled the complainant into his shop for her safety. Unable to complete his attack, the applicant fled from the scene but was followed by members of the public and was subsequently arrested.
The complainant suffered extensive injuries including four wounds to her head and face and to her arm which required surgery.
The applicant denied the alleged behaviour towards his wife and claimed they had a good relationship. He said he gave her money and denied restricting the complainant from using the phone or going out to see her friends. He denied the assaults that were alleged to have taken place in 2019. As to the stabbing on 20 August 2022, he said his intention had been to scar the complainant’s face and that he had never intended to kill her. He said he wanted to teach her a lesson because she had lied to him and used him to migrate to the UK. He wanted her every time she looked in the mirror to remember all the bad things she had done to him. He said he regretted his actions and did not intend to kill her.
In the course of cross-examination he said he had found the knife on the bus that day. He did not remember he had it on him until he was running towards the complainant. At the same time, he said he remembered a Moroccan tradition about scarring a wife’s face. He intended to scar her twice on the face and then leave her alone.
The jury returned its guilty verdicts in just 2 hours. The applicant’s appeal against conviction advanced several grounds, including that he only intended to scar the complainant in accordance with a claimed Moroccan tradition known as “Tcharmil” and he sought to rely on fresh evidence. He also sought an extension of time of 115 days, claiming that he believed the solicitors had lodged an appeal on his behalf.
In refusing leave to appeal the Single Judge gave the following reasons:
“I have considered the papers in your case including your grounds of appeal against conviction, the letters you have sent the court, your various items of proposed fresh evidence, the prosecution’s Respondents Notice and the response from your trial barrister.
Extension of time
You seek a lengthy extension of time - 115 days when the time limit for appealing is 28 days. I have decided not to extend time for the following reasons.
The only reasons you have provided for making such a late appeal are set out at Section 2 of your Form NG. These imply that your solicitor had suggested to you that he was lodging an appeal on your behalf, but he did not do so. You have provided no evidence to support this, and it is implausible. Furthermore, it is contradicted by the e-mail from your trial barrister confirming that you were advised at the end of your trial that there was no merit in you seeking to appeal your conviction.
It can be assumed that your legal representatives told you about the 28-day time limit when advising you negatively on the prospects of an appeal. Information about the ability to appeal to this court while unrepresented is publicly available. The fact that English is not your first language cannot in itself justify a delay of this kind. None of the fresh evidence on which you rely is such as to justify this delay.
For these reasons I do not find your application to extend time persuasive. In any event there would be no merit in extending time because I have concluded that your grounds for appeal do not have merit for the reasons set out below.
Applications to admit fresh evidence and the merits of the grounds.
I do not consider your grounds of appeal are reasonably arguable and so refuse leave for the following reasons. I have used the numbering below from your grounds of appeal document. In your letter to the court received on 22 October 2024 you have used slightly different numbering, but the content is essentially the same (albeit spread over more grounds).
Ground 1: Late change of your legal team
It is correct that your legal team changed relatively shortly before your trial due to the professional embarrassment of your previous legal team. According to the Respondent’s Notice, your new legal team took over on 14 June 2023.
On 28 June 2023 a pre-trial review took place. Your new representatives indicated that there would be a conference with you on the following day and that a Defence Statement would be served. The conference appears to have happened and I have seen a lengthy Defence Statement dated 29 June 2023 which set out the facts of your defence in some detail.
The trial started on 3 July 2023. There was no indication that your legal team did not consider that they were ready for trial. There were many opportunities for them to speak with you in conference and prepare at court, not least because although the jury was sworn on the first day of the trial, no evidence was called on that day. The complainant WK was not cross-examined until the third day of the trial.
The court allowed time for conferences during the trial and your barrister never made any argument that he was not in a position to proceed at any particular point. He has not made any suggestion to this effect in his e-mail to this court.
The Respondent’s Notice indicates that your barrister cross-examined WK at length including on topics which you have raised in your grounds such as the sending of money to Morocco and her account of her friendship with Jamila.
Your legal team would have had ample opportunity to make inquiries of defence witnesses and collate other evidence such as the receipts for payments to Morocco if you had instructed them to do so at the time.
Ground 2: Family Court proceedings
The jury in your criminal trial was made aware that WK had obtained an interim non-molestation order from the Family Court but did not seek a final order. There was no finding by the Family Court that she had been untruthful.
Ground 3: Fresh evidence regarding finances
WK was cross-examined at trial about whether or not you had restricted her finances. She accepted that on two occasions money had been sent to her family in Morocco.
You have provided fresh evidence showing two such payments. You have not explained why this evidence was not forthcoming at your trial. The payments date back to December 2018 and August 2019 and so the receipts would have been available to you at the time of your trial in 2023. For the reasons set out under Ground 1 you had sufficient time to discuss these issues with your legal representatives. I do not therefore consider that it is appropriate to admit this evidence on appeal. However, even if it was admitted it is not inconsistent with the evidence which the jury heard from WK.
Ground 4: No intention to kill, but to scar, including fresh evidence regarding the same.
You gave evidence at trial that you intended to scar and not kill WK. You were cross examined at length about this. However, the jury rejected your account and were sure that you intended to kill her. There was a clear basis for them to do so, in light of the CCTV footage showing eight blows with a knife to WK’s head and upper body and you perpetrating an attack which only stopped because others came to her aid.
You now seek to rely on fresh evidence from Ahmed Adam about this issue. He is a close and long-standing friend of yours. You contend on the Form W that the reason Mr Adam’s evidence was not placed before the jury at the original trial was due to the change in your legal representatives. However, as I have explained above in relation to Ground 1 there was plenty of opportunity for you to give them instructions to this effect. Moreover, Mr Adam says you have known each other for over 15 years, you saw each other regularly at the mosque and when you were out driving, and you were “talking all ways [sic]”. It is therefore clear that you were in regular contact with him and could have arranged for him to speak to your legal representatives. For these reasons it would not be appropriate to admit this evidence on appeal. However, even if it was admitted on appeal, given the strength of the CCTV evidence available and the fact that you yourself raised this point at trial, his evidence would not arguably render your conviction unsafe.
You also seek to rely on fresh evidence in the form of newspaper articles which you contend illustrate that scarring of females’ faces is a tradition in parts of Moroccan culture known as ‘Tcharmil’. Again, you have provided no explanation for why these press articles were not provided at trial. They all pre-date the trial by several years. I would not therefore admit them on appeal. In any event they do not support the proposition that you seek to derive from them, but simply refer to other cases where men have subjected their wives to violence including scarring to the face.
Fresh evidence of Jamila Atek regarding assertion of control and coercion
You seek to rely on a letter from Jamila Atek which is said to undermine some parts of WK’s evidence about coercion and control. Ms Atek is somebody you have known for some time as she is the wife of your friend Mr Adam. I do not consider that it would be appropriate to admit Ms Atek’s evidence on appeal for the same reasons as are given under Ground 4 above in relation to Mr Adam. In any event as the Respondent’s Notice explains, the account you have given her of what WK said at trial is not entirely accurate; and her involvement in the factual background was very limited, as is clear from the fleeting references to her in the summing up.
Potential further witness to suggest that WK was making false allegations.
You have suggested in correspondence with the court received on 20 December 2023 that you have a witness who will say that WK asked them to provide false evidence for immigration purposes no such witness has been forthcoming.
Overall conclusion on the merits
The prosecution evidence against you was very strong. WK gave evidence over two days and was cross-examined at length. The jury clearly found her to be credible and reliable. You also gave evidence, and the jury rejected your claims about the status of your relationship with her and the motive for your attack on her. The CCTV evidence was particularly compelling.
The various items of fresh evidence on which you seek to rely are not admissible on appeal but even if they were, they do not render your conviction arguably unsafe, nor do any of your other grounds.”
We agree entirely with the Single Judge’s detailed and comprehensive analysis. We have considered the applicant’s further grounds of appeal supporting renewal, dated 19 November 2024. This contains a statement in support of his grounds of appeal which extends to over 19 paragraphs. The content of these further grounds and statement largely goes over the ground already covered in the original material considered by the Single Judge and/or merely express disagreement with the conclusions reached by the jury by suggesting the jury were misled. This further material discloses no arguable grounds of appeal. For these reasons, leave to appeal is refused.
Epiq Europe Ltd hereby certify that the above is an accurate and complete record of the proceedings or part thereof.
Lower Ground, 46 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1JE
Tel No: 020 7404 1400
Email: rcj@epiqglobal.co.uk