R v Alkhader Qasem [2026] EWCA Crim 474

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.

[2026] EWCA Crim 474

Venue Royal Courts of Justice

Strand

London

WC2A 2LL

Date Friday 13 March 2026

Before

LORD JUSTICE COULSON

MR JUSTICE JAY

HIS HONOUR JUDGE LEONARD KC

(Sitting as a Judge of the CACD)

Between

REXCrown

Between

ALKHADER QASEM

_________

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)

_________

MR M FORD KC appeared for Applicant.

_________

JUDGMENT

[1]The applicant is now 17. I shall call him Qasem. On 6 November 2024, following a trial in the Crown Court at Manchester (Minshull Street), before Ellenbogen J ("the judge") and a jury, he was convicted of murder. On 19 December 2024 he was sentenced to detention during His Majesty's Pleasure, with a minimum term of 14 years and 113 days. He renews his application for permission to appeal against that sentence following refusal by the single judge. We are grateful to Mr Ford KC for his attendance this morning and for his clear, focused and realistic submissions. The Facts of Offending

[2]On the afternoon of 4 April 2024, Qasem and his co-accused Mia went to Raby Street in the Moss Side area of Manchester to visit a friend at his family home. Shortly after their arrival they encountered 17-year-old Prince Walker-Ayemi and his friend Ricardo Sewell in the street. Prince challenged Qasem before forcefully punching him two or three times in an unprovoked attack.

[3]Qasem and Mia did not seek refuge in the friend's house but instead they moved from the pavement to the road, squared up to Prince and Ricardo and gave chase when they ran away. The pursuit culminated in a different location when Qasem stabbed Prince three times. Two of the wounds, one to his heart and the other to the femoral artery in his right thigh, proved fatal.

[4]Some of the events which preceded and followed the stabbing were captured on CCTV cameras and were witnessed by a passerby, Ben Rogers. Amongst other things, Mr Rogers said that he had seen Qasem take out a silver object 4 inches in length from the waistband of his trousers. He was able to pick out Qasem because of all of the young men involved in this incident Qasem was wearing a distinctive light grey tracksuit top and bottoms. It was the Crown's case that the knife which Mr Rogers saw was the knife which Qasem used to kill Prince. The culmination of the chase and the murder itself were not witnessed. The fatal wounds were inflicted in a location which was not covered by CCTV.

[5]Qasem's defence was that the knife that he had used had belonged to Prince and was not his own. He said that he had picked it up when Prince dropped it. He said he then saw Prince retrieve a second knife which had been concealed, to Prince's knowledge, in the area of a nearby bush. Qasem said that Prince threatened him with that second knife and he used the knife that Prince had dropped in self-defence. By their verdict, of course, the jury rejected that defence. The Sentencing Exercise

[6]The critical element in the sentencing of Qasem turned on whether there was evidence that Qasem had taken a knife to the scene. If he had, that gave rise to a significant uplift in the starting point and, as Mr Ford accepts, would give rise to a sentence in this case which was unimpeachable. The judge found as a fact that Qasem had taken a knife to the scene. In her sentencing remarks she made the following findings of fact:

"Mr Rogers was a compelling witness with an impressive eye for detail. He was unshakeable in his recollection that Prince and Ricardo had started to back away after you, Alkhader [Qasem], had produced a silver object extending four inches from your hand from your waistband. Whilst the CCTV footage is unclear, I accept Mr Rogers’ evidence and am satisfied to the criminal standard, being the standard to which I make all my findings of fact, that the object which he saw in your hand was a knife which you had brought with you to Raby Street intending to have it available to use as a weapon. It is I find for that reason that Prince, who had instigated the confrontation on that day and was known to police himself to have been involved in earlier violent criminal activity, had backed off and ran away together with Ricardo. Acknowledging that you had not anticipated the initial confrontation, I reject Mr Ford, KC’s submission to the effect that you had had no reason to be carrying a knife, on your own evidence you and Is’haaq had been victims of earlier robberies in the area in which a knife had been used... It was your case, Alkhader [Qasem], rejected by the jury, that you had acted in self-defence. Your evidence was that you had run after Prince thinking that you would have a fist fight and that in the course of that chase you had seen him drop one knife from his waistband which you had then picked up when he had come at you with a second knife, apparently retrieved from a nearby bush, and with which you had thought that he would stab you. It had been for that reason, so you told the jury, that you had lashed out with the knife which Prince had dropped. By its verdict the jury has rejected your contention that you had acted in lawful self-defence. I reject your contention that you had stabbed Prince with his own knife, being sure that that account is innately implausible. Had Prince been armed he would have been likely to have stood his ground rather than back off from the earlier confrontation. Furthermore, the prospect that having run away he would both have dropped a knife which he had been carrying and immediately thereafter been in a position to retrieve a second knife which just happened to have been concealed to his knowledge in a nearby bush I regard as fanciful. Accepting that some physical altercation took place in the course of which you received an injury to your eye and possibly to your abdomen, I am sure that you, Alkhader [Qasem], inflicted the three stab wounds which Prince received using your own knife."

Section 31 Proceedings

[7]Qasem sought permission to appeal against sentence on the basis that the judge erred in sentencing him on the basis that he took a knife to the scene of the murder. The single judge rejected that application and said this:

"However, the Judge was in the best position to make factual findings, as she had presided at the trial. As you rightly accept, she correctly set out the principles on which a judge should proceed in relation to factual findings for sentence in circumstances in which such findings are not inherent in the jury’s verdict. On the basis of all the evidence, but notably that of Mr Rogers who said that he saw you draw a silver object about four inches long from your waistband before you and your co-defendant chased after the victim who was stabbed to death, it was unarguably open to the Judge to find to the criminal standard that you had drawn a knife before chasing the victim and thus taken the knife to the scene of the stabbing."

The Renewed Application

[8]The renewed application is put on the same basis as before. No point is taken as to the judge's approach in law to the making of findings of fact in these circumstances. Mr Ford accepts that, in the normal way, a trial judge is in the best position to make such findings of fact. However, he says that in the circumstances here, the judge reached a finding that was unreasonable. In particular, he submits that it was unreasonable for the judge to have concluded that Qasem had a knife. That is principally because of the footage of the confrontation, which is said to demonstrate that Qasem did not have a knife.

[9]It has taken some time and effort to identify the precise CCTV footage relied on for the purposes of that submission. We have watched all the CCTV footage, but the footage that is directly relevant to the renewed application is very short. By reference to the timings on the camera, which run from 16.08.47 to 16.08.59, we make a number of observations. That footage does not show very much of the initial confrontation. Instead it shows only the last part of that initial confrontation, by which time the applicant was by then the aggressor and Prince and Ricardo were moving backwards before turning to run away up the road. Discussion and Conclusions

[10]As we have said, we have considered the CCTV footage and the other elements of the evidence. We have concluded that it cannot be said that the judge unreasonably made the findings of fact that she did, and we therefore refuse the renewed application. There are a number of separate reasons for that conclusion.

[11]First, the judge was quite entitled to pay particular regard to the evidence of Mr Rogers. His evidence was only consistent with Qasem, who was easy to pick out because of his light coloured tracksuit, having a knife, which he withdrew at some point during the initial confrontation. Mr Rogers was fairly but fully cross-examined on the basis that he was mistaken, but he was quite unshakeable that that was not the case. No alternative explanation, save for one which we will come to in a moment, for the 4-inch silver article produced from Qasem's waistband, has ever been provided.

[12]Secondly, as we have said, the CCTV footage is an incomplete record of what happened. The initial confrontation is already well advanced by the time the protagonists are shown in the footage. We think that is what the judge meant by saying the CCTV footage was unclear. By contrast, Mr Rogers saw the whole of the confrontation.

[13]Thirdly, Mr Rogers' evidence was not in any event inconsistent with the CCTV footage. That footage was from a different angle and did not replicate Mr Rogers' sightline. The camera was looking across the front yard of the house and then across the road. It was side on to the events that were happening in the road. Mr Rogers, who was in a parked van in the road, therefore had a better view because he was able to look down the road at the events as they unfolded. Moreover, Mr Rogers was clear that the knife was taken from Qasem's waistband, which meant that, until it was removed, it was hidden and so would not necessarily have been captured on the incomplete CCTV footage. In particular, we note that at 16.08.55, which is the very moment that Prince turns to flee, Qasem is almost entirely hidden behind Mia.

[14]Fourthly, Prince had been confident enough to punch Qasem three times in the face during the initial confrontation. He was certainly not cowed or tentative about attacking him, and yet something completely changed his attitude and caused him to run away in fear. The CCTV footage only shows that part of the story. But the only possible inference is that what made the difference was Qasem's production of the knife from his waistband.

[15]Finally, Qasem stabbed Prince three times. By their verdict the jury rejected the submission of self-defence. In the light of that verdict and the other strands of evidence, the judge was quite entitled to reject as utterly implausible the factual basis on which the self-defence submission had been based, namely that having chased Prince to a different location where:(a) Qasem had picked up a knife that Prince had somehow dropped;

(b) Qasem had then seen Prince retrieve a new knife from behind a bush, which he somehow knew was there and

(c) Qasem had stabbed Prince with Prince's own knife which he had so carelessly dropped. If that was an implausible scenario, which it plainly was, the only realistic alternative explanation was that Qasem had used his own knife to kill Prince.

[16]Possibly mindful of some of these difficulties, Mr Ford's oral submissions this morning suggested that if there was a knife at the time of the initial confrontation, it was in Mia's hand rather than Qasem's. That seems to us, in the circumstances of this case, to be a new and difficult submission to maintain. A knife is not shown on the CCTV in Mia's hand. It was not the evidence of Mr Rogers. Moreover, Qasem never at any stage suggested that Mia had a knife, much less that he had obtained the knife from Mia in order to stab Prince. Mr Ford accepted therefore that if this potential new submission was right, it meant that Qasem was not telling the truth even now about the provenance of the knife. In our view, none of that can plausibly support a conclusion that the judge was wrong to find, as a fact and to the criminal standard, that Qasem had had the knife which Mr Rogers had seen in his hand, and had subsequently used that knife to kill Prince.

[17]Taking all the circumstances into account, we conclude that the evidence was overwhelming that Qasem had a knife, that he produced it after he had been punched, which caused Prince (the original aggressor) suddenly to fear for his own safety and flee, and that armed with the knife, Qasem pursued Prince and extracted terrible retribution for the earlier punches by stabbing Prince with the knife. We consider that any other conclusion based on all the material that we have seen would be unrealistic.

[18]For those reasons, notwithstanding Mr Ford's clear submissions, we conclude that the judge was entitled to make the finding that she did, and then it cannot be said that in some way that finding was unreasonable. We agree with the single judge's rejection of the application for permission to appeal. This renewed application is therefore refused. Epiq Europe Ltd hereby certify that the above is an accurate and complete record of the proceedings or part thereof. Lower Ground Floor, 46 Chancery Lane, London, WC2A 1JE Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Email: Rcj@epiqglobal.co.uk