Ali & Ors, R v [2017] EWCA Crim 1211

Case Nos: 2016/01355/B2, 2016/01488/B2,Case No 2016/01456/B2[2017] EWCA Crim 1211
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE CROWN COURT AT SHEFFIELD
HHJ Sarah Wright
Venue The Crown Court at Leeds
The Courthouse
1 Oxford Row
Venue Leeds
LS1 3BG
And
Venue Royal Courts of Justice LondonDate 02/08/2017
Before
THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE OF ENGLAND AND WALESMR JUSTICE LANGSTAFFMR JUSTICE MALES
Between
ReginaRespondentQurban AliApplicantsBasharat HussainApplicantArshid HussainApplicant
Mr M Wolkind QC for Applicant (Qurban Ali)Mr T Z Khan QC and Mr S Uttley for Applicant (Arshid Hussain)Mr P Hampton for RespondentHearing Hearing date: 29 June 2017
JudgmentLord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, CJ :NOTE: This is a case to which the provisions of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 applies and nothing is to be reported that will reveal the identity of any one of the many complainants.Introduction
[1]On 24 February 2016, following a trial in the Crown Court at Sheffield before Her Honour Judge Sarah Wright and a jury, the applicants were convicted of a very large number of linked sexual offences that occurred in Rotherham between the late 1980s and the early 2000s. Their co-accused, Bannaras Hussain, Karen MacGregor and Shelley Davies were also convicted of various offences. Two further co-accused were acquitted.[2]Each of the three applicants applied for leave to appeal against both conviction and sentence. All of the applications were refused by the single judge. Qurban Ali renewed his application to the Full Court for leave to appeal against conviction; Arshid Hussain renewed his application for leave to appeal against both conviction and sentence; and Basharat Hussain renewed his application solely in respect of conviction.[3]It is unnecessary to set out the precise ambit of the counts against each applicant. Arshid Hussain (to whom we will refer as Arshid) was convicted on eleven counts of indecent assault (counts 2, 24, 31, 33, 34, 38, 39, 43-45 and 47), three counts of rape (counts 3, 36 and 46), one count of buggery (count 4), one count of procuring a girl under 21 to have sexual intercourse with another (count 5), one count of conspiracy to rape (count 16), two counts of procuring a woman to become a common prostitute (counts 26 and 35), one count of false imprisonment (count 30), one count of assault occasioning actual bodily harm (count 37), one count of attempting to procure a girl under 21 to have unlawful sexual intercourse with another (count 40), and one count of abduction of an unmarried girl (count 41). He was acquitted on other counts. He was sentenced to a total term of 35 years' imprisonment. The judge imposed terms of 20 years' imprisonment on certain of the counts, consecutive terms of ten years' imprisonment on other counts, and a consecutive term of five years' imprisonment on another group of counts, making a total of 35 years' imprisonment in all.[4]Basharat Hussain was sentenced to a total of 25 years' imprisonment, and Qurban Ali was sentence to ten years' imprisonment.[5]It became clear to us that the information in relation to the renewed application of Qurban Ali was incomplete; we allowed further time for the information and submissions to be served and indicated we would incorporate into the judgment we had delivered orally our decision on the application of Qurban Ali. The Facts[6]It is necessary to set out, in as short a form as possible, the truly horrifying facts. The background and the impact of the crimes upon the victims are set out in the clearest possible terms by the trial judge in her sentencing remarks. "Each of you in your own way perpetrated or facilitated the sexual abuse of these young girls. Your victims were targeted, sexualised, and in some cases subjected to acts of a degrading and violent nature. Each of your victims was vulnerable in some way, either because they had unsettled home lives, but had previously suffered ill-treatment and abuse, were in Local Authority care, or were naïve young girls who, despite being from loving and caring families, were reaching adolescence and were susceptible to the attention that was given to them. Many of the victims were subjected to repeated abuse. It was a pattern of abuse which was repeated over and over again. Some victims were groomed, some coerced and intimidated. They were made to feel that they could not report what was happening to them. Even if they did, no action was taken, and you were free to continue your exploitation of them. The abuse of the victims was often carefully planned. An abuser would build up their trust, and it is a common feature of this case that many of the victims describe their abusers as initially caring and loving, then turning to becoming controlling and domineering. Some victims were given presents, others given drugs, and each given attention. The power that the abusers were then able to have over these children meant that many of the children distanced themselves from their parents or carers. You, Arshid Hussain, in particular, played a key role. You and your brothers, Bannaras Hussain and Basharat Hussain, were well-known in the area. You drove distinctive cars and had a reputation for violence. There was a perception by some of your victims that you appeared, in their words, to rule Rotherham. You exploited that to the full. Before I deal with the role that each of you played in this appalling catalogue of offending, I wish to pay tribute to the victims in this case. Each of them, and I include those who also gave evidence of abuse perpetrated against them which is not the subject of charges on the indictment, has shown the utmost courage in coming forward. They came forward to give their accounts to the police, despite in some cases having tried to speak up previously when nothing was done. For many years they have not been heard. They have had no voice. They gave evidence in court, speaking about the most traumatic and intensely personal episodes from their past, that none of them would willingly choose to discuss in a public forum. They showed immeasurable courage in giving evidence and, in effect, having to relive their abuse in this court. It was a recurrent theme. When they were accused in cross-examination on behalf of a defendant of inventing stories for financial gain, or being accused of being fantasists, … it became apparent that their real motive for coming forward was their desire to bring the issue of child sexual exploitation into the public domain, and a wish to prevent it happening to other children in the future. They hope that by them speaking out, it will not just act as a deterrent to others behaving in this way towards young people, but also ensure that the appropriate authorities will not fail to take action in the future in the face of evidence of such crimes. Their bravery in speaking up, knowing that they would be repeatedly accused of lying in this court was considerable, and cannot be underestimated. The impact of your offending upon the victims, their families, and indeed the wider community has been devastating. Their childhood and adolescence can never be reclaimed. Each has suffered immense psychological harm. They continue and will continue to suffer throughout their lives as a result of your actions. Their families also suffer. No one hearing the evidence in this trial could fail to forget one of the victims describe how she hated her own body, how one mother used to cry herself to sleep at night, how a number of victims suffer from eating disorders, and how some children changed from being happy, active, normal teenagers, to withdrawn and secretive young people, out of parental control, often becoming involved in criminal behaviour themselves, whilst under an abuser's influence. The harm you have caused is of unimaginable proportions."[7]The judge's description clearly sets out the horrific crimes which were committed, the magnitude of the culpability of the defendants and the severe harm caused through the devastating impact on the victims. It properly reflected the facts and cannot be improved upon. In essence, the crimes involved not merely the targeted procurement of vulnerable girls for the applicants' sexual gratification over a long period of time, but they also involved the passing of girls and young women around to other men. An equally shocking aspect of this offending was the using of some of them for purposes of prostitution in order to make money.[8]The first complainant, who featured in the first 19 counts of the indictment, was "JU". She was aged 12 when she met Arshid, who was then aged 17. At first, he was friendly. That was characteristic of the course of offending of those convicted of these crimes. He physically abused her before sexually assaulting her. He performed oral sex on her, ejaculating into her mouth; and he had vaginal sex and anal sex.[9]As an illustration of the second feature of this case, Arshid then passed JU to his brother and other men for her to perform oral sex. He used her on occasions to settle his debts. On one occasion, she was anally raped when performing oral sex on one of their friends. She became a heroin addict. She had a termination she was aged 14.[10]In about 1994, JU met Karen McGregor and Shelley Davies (two of the co-accused), and also a man called "Blind Ash". As we have explained at paragraph 5, we deal in this judgment with the events relating to Blind Ash (said to be the applicant Qurban Ali) at paragraphs 48 and following below.[11]The second complainant, who featured in counts 24 to 27 of the indictment, was "LT". She had known both the Hussain brothers since she was aged 14. She was again in care, but often ran away. She was forced by Arshid to have oral sex with him. She was also forced to work as a prostitute.[12]The third complainant was "AS", who was the subject of counts 28 to 32. She knew the Hussain brothers from the age of about 14 or 15. She remained in a relationship with Basharat Hussain for about five years. We shall return at paragraphs 43 and following to deal in a little more detail with her, as the events relating to her and Basharat Hussain form a ground in the renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction. She was also subject to abuse by Arshid, forced to work as a prostitute, and subjected to violence to make her do so.[13]The fourth complainant was "LW", the subject of counts 33 and 34. She met Arshid when he was aged 24. They had oral sex and vaginal sex. She became pregnant and underwent a termination. Although the sexual intercourse was consensual, she was underage.[14]The fifth complainant was "JF", the subject of counts 35 to 37. She was plainly a vulnerable young girl. She started to take drugs at the age of 11. She came to know the Hussain brothers. Arshid followed his cynical commencement of their relationship by being initially kind. He then moved to physically assaulting her, before he took her to work as a prostitute in Bradford. She was put to sex work with men in cars. She earned £200-300 a night and gave all the money to Arshid. When she was aged between 17 and 19 years, she was taken to a house in Masborough and forced to act as a prostitute.[15]The sixth complainant was "ET", the subject of counts 39 and 39. She met Arshid through an associate when she was aged 13 to 14. She was taken to a flat in Sheffield. He took her into a bedroom. They undressed. Each performed oral sex on the other and he had vaginal sex with her. He left and procured others to enter the room who tried to engage her in sexual activity. She was able to escape.[16]The seventh complainant was "LD", the subject of count 40. She met Arshid when she was 15. They had consensual sex. He dropped her off at a house, where men again tried indecently to assault her.[17]The eighth complainant was "SW", the subject of counts 41 to 46. She met Arshid when she was 14. They had sex within a month of meeting. There was consensual oral sex, but he raped her on one occasion.[18]The ninth complainant was "CC", the subject of count 47. She met Arshid through another brother when she was aged 15. He began a sexual relationship with her when she was under 16.[19]The tenth complainant was "RS", the subject of counts 48 to 51. She met Arshid when she was aged 15. She was in a relationship with him for 13 to 15 years. Early on they had oral and vaginal sex. The relationship was characterised by violence and threats.[20]Arshid's defence was that he was not fit to be interviewed. He did not give evidence at trial. In a Defence Case Statement, he said that he did not know four of the complainants. Although he knew the others, he had had no sexual contact with them. He had had a sexual relationship with SW (the eighth complainant) before she was 16, but thought that she was older.[21]So far as Basharat Hussain's defence is relevant to his application, he admitted the sexual relationship with AS (the third complainant), but was adamant that they did not have sexual intercourse until her sixteenth birthday. He denied all the allegations.[22]When he was arrested in 2015, Qurban Ali denied having sexual relationships. His case differed slightly. Essentially, it was that he was not "Blind Ash"; he was a victim of mistaken identity and has never done anything wrong.

Arshid Hussain's renewed applications for leave to appeal against conviction

[23]Two points are taken on Arshid's behalf in his renewed application that has been made on his behalf by junior counsel, Mr Uttley. First, that his significant medical problems made it impossible for him to give meaningful evidence so that his right to a fair trial under Article 6 was breached. Second, that the judge ruled wrongly in respect of an application to adduce evidence of a false complaint by SW. We will deal with each point in turn.

Ability to give meaningful evidence

[24]As regards his inability to give meaningful evidence and the contention that there had been a consequent breach of his right to a fair trial under Article 6, it is important to emphasise that at the time we announced at Leeds our decision to refuse the renewed application, for reasons which were to be given (and were given) later the same day, we had not seen photographs or a video-recording of Arshid when he had been sent to prison. Our decision in respect of the ground under Article 6 was reached entirely independently of that.[25]In 2005 Arshid had received a gunshot wound that left him a paraplegic. By the time of the trial he was wheelchair-bound. He obtained a medical report dated 19 November 2015. The trial began on 7 December 2015. According to the judge, the point as to his fitness to stand trial was raised before her a week before the trial began. The medical report was prepared by a Dr Q A K Lodhi. His report was placed before the court, as was a report from Arshid's general practitioner. In the light of that evidence, the prosecution decided to have him examined by Dr Quinn. Evidence was called before the judge.[26]In a clear ruling characteristic of the way in which she conducted the entirety of this difficult case, in essence the judge rejected the evidence of Dr Q A K Lodhi and accepted the evidence of Dr Quinn. The judge found that Arshid was completely fit to stand trial.[27]The judge then made appropriate adjustments for the trial to take place. The prosecution evidence was given while Arshid was at home. A video-link was set up to enable him to see the evidence as it was given.[28]Although initially the ruling of the judge that he was fit to stand trial was criticised, it is no longer. Instead, it was argued before us by Mr Utley that at the conclusion of the prosecution case, the position was that Arshid was unable to attend court (a contention made when we had not at that stage seen the video-recording of Arshid in prison). It was said that, irrespective of the position taken by counsel at the trial, the judge should have ruled as to how he should give his evidence.[29]In a careful ruling made on 1 February 2016, the judge dealt with the contentions that were raised before her. She described the submission in these terms:
"The defence now submit at the conclusion of the prosecution case that Arshid Hussain cannot give meaningful evidence. They submit that no assistance can be provided to the [applicant] to eliminate any disadvantage to him in not giving evidence and therefore submit the [applicant] cannot have a fair trial and I should discharge the jury."
[30]That was a bold submission. Having heard evidence of his wicked criminality, counsel submitted that the trial should come to an end in these circumstances. The judge carefully dealt with each of the submissions. She suggested that, for example, Arshid might wish to ask for his proof of evidence to be admitted as evidence under the hearsay provisions. She carefully considered the provisions of section 35 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 dealing with adverse inferences. She concluded:
"I have come to the conclusion that it is not for me to decide whether the [applicant] is able to give meaningful evidence – that is a matter for him in consultation with his legal team. They appear to submit that he cannot give meaningful evidence."
[31]As the judge plainly said, the position under the law of England and Wales is that the conduct of Arshid's defence is a matter for Arshid and his legal advisers. It is argued by Mr Utley, however, that, even though the legal advisers did not want to advance any suggestions, the judge herself should have made arrangements. For example, she should have made arrangements for him to be brought to court in a bed and to give evidence for an appropriate time each day from his bed.[32]In the course of argument, the court observed that this was a nonsensical suggestion. That is a charitable description. It was a submission that should never have been made. For a judge to seek to impose upon a defendant something that the defendant's advisers did not suggest and had never put forward is completely contrary to the rule that the absolutely fair and rigorous way in which a defendant's defence is conducted is a matter for the defendant and his lawyers. In this case the applicant was ably advised by Mr Khan QC, a distinguished leading counsel. It was for him in consultation with Arshid to make any application and to make his decision consequent upon the judge’s ruling. This ground of application for leave to appeal is not worthy of any further reasoning; permission is refused.

Bad character evidence

[33]The second ground of appeal against conviction relates to a bad character application that was made in respect of the eighth complainant SW. She had previously made allegations of sexual misconduct against her father. They were investigated but never prosecuted. It was argued on behalf of Arshid that this amounted to a false complaint.[34]In another careful and clear ruling, again characteristic of the way in which she conducted the trial, the judge ruled that there was not sufficient evidence to show that the complaint had been false and she refused to admit the evidence.[35]We have carefully considered the judge's ruling. It seems to us that this again was an application that should never have been renewed before us by responsible counsel. In refusing leave the single

judge observed as follows:

"[The judge] gave proper consideration as to what evidence there was that the allegation was false in order to determine whether section 100 of Criminal Justice Act 2003 was engaged. There has to be a proper evidential basis for asserting that the previous statement is both made and untrue (R v E [2004] EWCA 1313). If not, the questions would not be about lies but about the sexual behaviour of the complainant and hence caught by section 41(1). The judge heard arguments on both sides, the prosecution having opposed the application on the bases that section 110 was not invoked, but that this was an attempt to circumvent section 41."
[36]We agree with those observations. We refuse leave in respect of that further ground of appeal. Accordingly, we refuse the renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction.

The renewed application by Arshid Hussain for leave to appeal against sentence

[37]We have received eloquent submissions from Mr Khan QC, who has appeared on behalf of Arshid solely in his renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence. We have had the benefit of viewing (and we consider this only in relation to sentence) some stills and a video-recording of the way in which Arshid behaved when he was in prison in July 2016. It seems clear to us that, although he has the inevitable medical problems consequent upon his being a paraplegic, there is no evidence whatsoever to show that his condition was in any way beyond that of someone who has suffered the inevitable consequences of paraplegia. He was certainly able to travel around the prison in his wheelchair unaided. When considering his sentence, it seems to us realistic to proceed on that basis.[38]We accept the argument advanced by Mr Khan QC that Arshid began to offend at the age of 17. Secondly, we accept that in the mid-1990s he spent a period of between one and two years in custody. However, we have to take into account three features in this case: first, he sought out vulnerable young girls; in the beginning he was pleasant to them but, by and large, he then turned to physical abuse; and then he used them for his own sexual purposes. Secondly, he passed them to his friends who used them for other sexual purposes. Thirdly, he put some of them into prostitution.[39]The question for us is: is a total sentence of 35 years' imprisonment an appropriate sentence for this offending?[40]As this court has said on many occasions, the comparison of the facts of one case with another is a hopeless exercise. The court must have regard to the factors that we set out at the outset of this judgment and which were so ably summarised by the judge: the fact that Arshid played a key role and the fact that he preyed on the vulnerable. The fact that many of the young girls had other problems in addition to their vulnerability is an aggravating factor. The fact that they may already have been damaged is the key to his offending. He cannot in any way seek to say that that mitigates his offending behaviour. It is a severely aggravating factor. Without doubt, it is apparent from the description given by the learned judge, which we have set out, that Arshid was a key contributor to the destruction of their lives.[41]The court is of the view that such behaviour simply cannot be tolerated and that a deterrent sentence of some considerable length was called for. We do not consider that the sentence passed by the learned judge was in any way manifestly excessive or wrong in principle. She made an allowance for Arshid's disability. She took into account the young age at which he started to offend. But he can only be described as a supremely evil man. The court has a duty to ensure by the imposition of a very long sentence that no one enters into such conduct again without the appreciation that it will be marked by the court with sentences of the utmost severity. Such conduct must be stamped out. It is the duty of the court to do everything possible to that end.[42]Accordingly, Arshid's renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence is refused.

Basharat Hussain's renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction

[43]We next deal with the non-counsel application of Basharat Hussain. His simple point was that the evidence of the third complainant, AS, to whom we have referred at paragraph 12, was significantly undermined at trial and therefore the conviction was unsafe. No specific point was made that anything was in any way wrong. It was simply said that there was a doubt about the safety of the conviction.[44]The relationship between Basharat Hussain and AS lasted, as we have already mentioned at paragraph 12, about five years. It commenced when she was aged 14 or 15. Her evidence was that she had performed oral sex on him before her sixteenth birthday. He would take her to a flat in Sheffield, where she was tied up and forced to perform oral sex on other men. He raped her. He demanded that she stored drugs, money and firearms for him. He threatened to burn down her house and to kill her. On one occasion her hands and feet were bound by Basharat and Arshid, and they poured petrol on her feet.[45]Basharat Hussain's evidence was that he had been in a relationship with AS; they had not had any sexual activity until her sixteenth birthday; and he had never made her store drugs, money or firearms. He denied all charges and all of the offences involving her; she had fabricated everything.[46]He put forward various points in relation to her evidence. They were all the subject of the most thorough cross-examination of her by his counsel. It seems to us, having considered the evidence, that AS’s evidence was thoroughly tested. There is and could be no possible criticism of the summing-up which was fair and balanced. It was for the jury to assess her evidence as against that of Basharat Hussain and to reach a conclusion on the credibility of each.[47]We have considered all the materials and are entirely satisfied that there is no basis for doubting the safety of this conviction. Accordingly, Basharat Hussain's renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction is refused. There is no application for leave to appeal against sentence.

The renewed application of Qurban Ali

[48]Qurban Ali was convicted of conspiracy to rape (count 16) but acquitted of rape/indecent assault/procuring (counts 17 to 19). As we have stated at paragraph 10, the complainant was JU.[49]The issue at trial was whether Qurban Ali was the man known as “Blind Ash”.[50]The only ground of appeal as pursued on the renewed application by Mr Wolkind QC is that these verdicts were inconsistent. Apart from this it was not suggested that there was no evidence on which the jury could safely convict of conspiracy to rape on count 16.[51]Count 16, on which Qurban Ali was convicted, was concerned with what happened at the house of Karen McGregor (a co-accused) in Rotherham; it was a count of conspiracy and did not require proof that Qurban Ali had had sexual relations with JU .[52]There was evidence from JU that: i) “Blind Ash” was Arshid Hussain’s uncle and lived on the same street as him; ii) “Blind Ash” would come to Karen McGregor’s house with Arshid where Arshid would have sex with JU upstairs; iii) “Blind Ash” brought other Asian men to the house for this purpose and gave McGregor heroin for JU’s use.[53]Qurban Ali accepted that he was Arshid Hussain’s uncle but not that he was known as “Blind Ash”. There was evidence from Donna Mapes that “Blind Ash” was often at Karen McGregor’s house. There was evidence from a man called Sammy Elahi that the defendant Qurban Ali was known as “Blind Ash”. Karen McGregor said the same. Another complainant called Jennifer Footitt confirmed that Qurban Ali, who owned Speedline Taxis, was called “Blind Ash”, although she herself did not call him by that name. Qurban Ali agreed that he did own Speedline Taxis. Nobody else was identified who had the nickname “Blind Ash”. There was evidence of the existence of another man called Qurban Ali who was a taxi driver, but no suggestion that he had the nickname “Blind Ash”.[54]Qurban Ali’s appearance did not match the description given by JU of the man called “Blind Ash”. However, the judge directed the jury correctly about this and about credibility generally. No complaint is made about these directions.[55]On the basis of this evidence the jury were entitled to find the allegation in count 16 proved, in other words that Qurban Ali was “Blind Ash”.[56]In addition it was JU’s evidence that: i) She was forced to have sex with “Blind Ash” at McGregor’s house (count 17); ii) “Blind Ash” was a taxi driver and J performed oral sex on him in the back of his taxi (count 18); and iii) “Blind Ash” drove J from Rotherham to Sheffield in his taxi where she was forced to have sex with another man (count 19).[57]It is understandable that the jury were unable to be sure about counts 17-19: i) JU’s evidence about having had sex with “Blind Ash” was inconsistent. In a DVD interview she said that she had never had sex with him. She also said that she had vaginal sex with him once at a location in Sheffield and oral sex in the back of his taxi once. She said also that she had vaginal or oral sex with him a few times. She was cross-examined about the inconsistency. ii) Qurban Ali accepted that he had worked at Lucky Star Taxis and at Speedline Taxis (which he owned) but not that he had been a taxi driver; because of his poor eyesight he did not drive. The prosecution agreed that Qurban Ali had never taken a driving test, had never had a vehicle registered in his name, and had never been a taxi driver. That said, the evidence of Jennifer Footitt was that Qurban Ali did sometimes drive, at any rate around the car park, and that he could see better than he made out. iii) JU had not taken advantage of earlier contacts with the police or probation service (as when, aged 18, she had pleaded guilty to the offence of possession of drugs): iv) Accordingly there was at least room for doubt whether Qurban Ali had ever had sex with J as distinct from arranging for others to do so, whether he was a taxi driver, and whether he had ever driven J from Rotherham to Sheffield.[58]The short answer to Qurban Ali’s application for leave to appeal against conviction is that there was evidence on which the jury were entitled to be sure that QA had the nickname “Blind Ash" and had been involved in arranging for JU to have sex with men at McGregor’s house in Rotherham (count 16), but not sure of the matters which formed the basis of counts 17 to 19. It was unnecessary for the jury to form any view about whether Qurban Ali had ever had sex with JU, was a taxi driver, or had ever driven J from Rotherham to Sheffield in order to convict on count 16.[59]The argument that the verdicts are inconsistent appears to be founded on the evidence in relation to(1) “Blind Ash” working for Speedline Taxis and(2) “Blind Ash” taking them in a taxi to Sheffield. The argument is that this evidence shows that the person responsible for the conduct constituting count 16 was a driver and therefore cannot have been Qurban Ali. But that is simply not the case. The evidence in relation to Speedline Taxis is that “Blind Ash” used to work at Speedline Taxis (which Qurban Ali did) and that he “brought some other Asians” to MacGregor’s house in Rotherham. This does not mean that he brought them in a taxi, simply that he arranged for them to come. Driving forms no part of count 16. In contrast the second part of the evidence is concerned only with the alleged Sheffield incident. The jury’s verdict means no more than that they accepted part of J’s evidence and did not accept other parts which did relate to sex with or driving by "Blind Ash”.[60]Even if there was an inconsistency which, for the reasons given, we reject, the applicant did not shown the verdicts are so inconsistent as to demand interference on the test set out in Fanning [2016] EWCA Crim 550. Mr Wolkind’s argument assumed that the reason the jury acquitted on counts 17-19 was that they could not be sure that Qurban Ali drove. It might equally have been that the jury felt unsure, for the reasons we have given, that JU had ever had sex with Qurban Ali himself.[61]Since there is at least this rational explanation of the verdicts on 17 and 18, and since as to 19 the jury may not have been sure that JU was prostituted away from MacGregor’s house, there is no basis for the court to consider inconsistency as a ground of appeal.[62]For all these reasons, we dismiss the renewed application for leave to appeal.