GHULAM HUMAYUN

R v H (2014)

D was charged with Possession with intention to supply Class B Drugs ( cannabis) after a substantial amount of the substance was found in the air vent area of the vehicle which he was driving. No other persons were in the vehicle and no forensic evidence belonging to either D or any other person were found on the packaging. Following a four day trial, D was acquitted of all charges.

R v H (2011)

D was one of 5 Defendants charged with Violent Disorder, whereby a victim had suffered multiple stab wounds, which were thankfully not life threatening. D was stopped, along with 5 other males allegedly fleeing from the scene of the stabbing. Following a 12 day trial, D and one other were acquitted.

R v H ( 2013)

D was charged with False Imprisonment and Assault occasioning actual bodily harm . Alleged to have kept his partner locked in their shared flat for an entire weekend, only letting her out in order for her to receive medical attention. Following a 4 day trial and a lengthy, and what was described by the Judge as a ‘gruelling 3 hour cross examination’ of the complainant, the Jury acquitted unanimously on the first count and by a majority on the second count.

R v H ( another) (2017)

D, who worked as a security guard, was charged with Grevious Bodily Harm after he had punched a juvenile, causing the victim to fall to the ground a suffer a seizure. D put forward a defence of Self-defence. D’s own colleague, who was present at the time of the alleged assault, gave evidence refuting D’s defence, and said that D had assaulted the victim in the absence of any provocation. Following a three day trial, the Jury however, acquitted D of the charge.

R v B ( 2016)

D was charged along with another of Human Trafficking and Modern Day Slavery charges. The defence had managed to make a successful Application to dismiss the first charge at the half way stage of the proceedings. The prosecution made an interlocutory appeal to the Court of Appeal. However, the Defence application was upheld. The trial then proceeded with the remaining charge and went on for a further 5 days. Following which, they jury returned a unanimous verdict of Not Guilty.

R v C (2014)

D was charged with Sexual Assault on two female train passengers on separate days. Neither of the complainants knew each other and both made complaints of incidents on different dates. Both however, identified D as being the person who assaulted them by touching. Following a 3 day trial, the jury unanimously acquitted D of all counts.

R v K ( 2015)

D had been charged with historic sexual assault against his own daughter, who was 9 years old at the time of the alleged incident. The matter came to trial some seven years later. The complainants mother also gave evidence in saying that her daughter had alluded to the sexual assault soon after it had happened. At the time of the trial, the mother and D were no longer together. Following a 5 day trial, and multiple family members giving evidence against D, D was however unanimously acquitted by the jury.