..IN THE NEWS...IN THE NEWS


would have taken 100 years in prison if that was the sentence. But there was never any guilt, I couldn’t accept something I hadn’t done.”


However, soon after the case his family and friends travelled to London to visit the offices of the phone company involved to see if any records could be recovered. It was quickly established they were in fact still retrievable from the company’s head office in India. An appeal against the conviction was lod-ged and in July 2014, the case was heard by the Court of Appeal and Safraz’s conviction quashed after 18 harrowing months in jail.


The court’s judgement highlighted the lack of forensic evidence, as well as the prosecu- tion’s acceptance during the trial that the complainant must have been mistaken about the location of the incident despite her being “adamant” in her evidence about where it had taken place. But it said the new evidence showing Safraz had been on the conference call for over 29 minutes during the time of the alleged incident meant the conviction was unsafe.


The ruling states: “The defence legal team were told on the first day of the trial that no such records relating to the call were available.


SHORTCOMINGS


“The officer in the case was examined about this and other aspects. The officer was very frank. He accepted that there had been shortcomings in the investigation in a num- ber of respects. He was asked questions with regard to the potential relevance of the conference call taking place during the win- dow of two minutes and 50 seconds. He conceded that if there had been such evi- dence of a conference call taking place covering that period, it might suggest “pos- sibly he was not responsible”.


“That is by no means an overstatement of the position, as it seems to us.”


It adds: “It now appears from the evidence that the officer in charge of the case had relied to some extent on the Crown Prose- cution Service, and to some extent on colleagues of his, and they had taken it from their knowledge and contact with mobile phone companies generally that such records would not be available. That, in effect, was the assumption. But in the event it is shown to be wrong because such records did, in fact, still exist and were capable of being obtained.


APRIL 2018


“It clearly was important evidence, given the nature of the Crown's case that the alleged rape had occurred within that two minutes and 50 seconds, when on the defence case the conference call lasted throughout this relevant period and noth- ing had been heard by the other two men.


“There were a significant number of points available to the defence al-ready. This fur- ther point may well have had (it is not for us to say whether it would have had) a signifi- cant or decisive impact on the jury for the purposes of its determination and ultimate verdict. As we see it, the jury may well have reached a different conclusion had this evi- dence been before it.”


Because of the serious nature of the case, the Court of Appeal said a retrial should be ordered but stressed four times that the evidence should be reviewed by a “fresh eye” within the CPS before any further trial took place due to the “very concerning fea- tures about this matter”.


NO RELIEF


Safraz was freed and four days before his retrial was due to start, the case against him was dropped with the CPS offering no evi- dence. He says: “The judge said ‘You are free to go’. It was a mixture of emotions - relief but also anger after being let down so badly by the justice system and the police.”


Clearing his name was a huge mo-ment but it has been far from a happy ending in the years since. “The first two years I was really struggling and I’m still struggling to sleep. I’m traumatised by what has happened. For the first two years I didn’t know what to do, I wasn’t thinking straight.


“The Liam Allan case really pushed me to come forward. I thought this time, I need to speak out for other people.”


Student Liam Allen was wrongly ac-cused of rape; the Metropolitan Police issued an apology for a series of errors in its handling of the case, including failure to investigate 40,000 messages on the alleged victim’s phone.


Safraz added: “When I got out I went back to taxi driving. I was in huge debt - money had been borrowed from friends and family. I was working 18 to 20-hour days as I had a lot of people to pay back. I don’t like taxi driving and I want to do something better. But I have to feed my family.”


He says among the many difficult mo- ments in the previous years was dealing with the stigma of the allegations affecting his family in the local Muslim community, as well as the first time he was remanded in custody for ten days after being charged.


UNBELIEVABLE


“That was the first time I realised what was happening, I felt the whole system was against me rather than finding out the truth. I was in prison with rapists, murder- ers, paedophiles, you can’t explain it in words. You take an ordinary cirtizen off the street who is peaceful and law-abiding and put him in a cell with serious criminals, it was quite scary.”


Safraz has now submitted a formal complaint about the handling of his case to South Yorkshire Police ahead of potentially going to the Independent Office for Police Conduct. But he says several weeks after making the com- plaint, he is yet to receive any response or even acknowledgment.


Safraz says there are many unanswered questions about his case but is determined others should not go through a similar experience to him. “I’m still scared by the police and the thought they might put me behind bars for another false allegation. That is partly why I didn’t speak out until today. But I have had enough now. After seeing other people suffering the way I have suffered, I can’t stop myself speaking out.”


Liam Allan who had a rape allegation against him dropped


A spokeswoman for South Yorkshire Police said: “South Yorkshire Police can confirm a complaint has been received in relation to this case by the Professional Standards Department. As enquiries are currently ongoing, it would not be appro- priate to comment any further at stage.”


this 59


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104