Neil Wilby Media

The Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) has referred a man’s assault conviction to the Crown Court because new evidence significantly undermines the credibility of the complainant in the case.  

Shabaz Ahmed was convicted after a trial at Thames Magistrates’ Court on 30th August 2016 of assault by beating. He was sentenced to a Community Order, and a three-year restraining order was imposed.  

An appeal against his conviction at Snaresbrook Crown Court was dismissed on 23rd January 2017.  

Following the trial, the complainant in Mr Ahmed’s case was convicted of concealing criminal property. 

The CCRC received an application for review of Mr Ahmed’s conviction on 1st March 2023.  

The credibility of both Mr Ahmed and the complainant was central to the trial court’s decision.  

After a detailed investigation, the CCRC has concluded that on a rehearing, the Crown Court is likely to consider that the complainant’s subsequent conviction demonstrates significant dishonesty. 

There is therefore a real possibility that the court will find that the level and nature of dishonesty exhibited by the complainant significantly undermines her overall credibility, such that it will come to a different conclusion in Mr Ahmed’s case.  

The criminal justice ‘watchdog’, the CCRC, is an independent body set up under the Criminal Appeal Act 1995. It is responsible for independently reviewing suspected and alleged miscarriages of criminal justice in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. It is based in Birmingham and is funded by the Ministry of Justice.     

There are currently ten Commissioners who bring to the CCRC considerable experience from a wide variety of backgrounds. Commissioners are appointed by the monarch on the recommendation of the Prime Minister in accordance with the Office for the Commissioner for Public Appointments’ Code of Practice.   

The CCRC usually receives around 1,500 applications for reviews (convictions and/or sentences) each year. Since starting work in 1997, the CCRC has referred around 3% of applications to the appeal courts.     

The CCRC considers whether, as a result of new evidence or argument, there is a real possibility that the conviction would not be upheld were a reference to be made. New evidence or argument is argument or evidence which has not been raised during the trial or on appeal.  Applicants should usually have appealed first. A case can be referred in the absence of new evidence or argument or an earlier appeal only if there are “exceptional circumstances”.          

If a conviction, such as that of Mr Ahmed, is referred to the Crown Court (or the Court of Appeal in more serious cases) it is for that Court to decide whether to uphold the conviction or allow the appeal and quash it. 

___________________________________________________________________________

Neil Wilby is a journalist, court reporter and transparency campaigner who has reported on police misconduct, regulatory failures, and criminal and civil justice since 2009. He is the founder and editor of Neil Wilby Media, launched in 2015.

Page last updated: Thursday 11th September 2025 at 11h55

Corrections: Please let me know if there is a mistake in this article. I will endeavour to correct it as soon as possible.

Right of reply: If you are mentioned in this article and disagree with it, please let me have your comments. Provided your response is not defamatory, it will be added to the article.

Image Credits: HMCTS

© Neil Wilby 2015–2025. Unauthorised use, or reproduction, of the material contained in this article, without permission from the author, is strictly prohibited. Extracts from, and links to, the article (or blog) may be used, provided that credit is given to Neil Wilby, with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.