Anver Daud Sheikh

---

Anver Daud Sheikh was convicted of assaulting two children from a children’s home that he worked as a housemaster at. The evidence against Sheikh was testimony from the two individuals who made the allegations. The appeal related to the testimony of one complainant, but it was accepted that if the verdicts related to that complainant were unsafe, the other verdicts were also safe. The appeal therefore centered on the testimony of one complainant (MG). At the original trial, MG testified that just before the offence happened he had been bullied by another boy, named Danny (and described Sheikh’s reaction to that). Following his first conviction it was found that Sheikh only worked at the home for a year between 1st Semtember 1979 and 31st August 1980. This meant some of the complainant’s evidence could not be correct. Danny was not at the home at the same time as Sheikh. MG gave differing evidence at the second trial. On appeal, it was argued that the fact key documents relevant to the case were missing made it impossible for Sheikh to have a fair trial. These documents included the staff rota and personnel records that were likely to be highly relevant to (i) whether Sheikh wuld have come into contact with MG so as to have had the opportunity to win his trust, and (ii) whether Sheikh had the oportunity to commit these offences. The relevance of these documents was said to be intensified by the fact that Sheikh and MG were only present at the home during a limited period, the offences would have been committed within a very narrow time frame in August 1980, MG contended Sheikh was the only person on duty during the evening proceeding the allegations, the circumstances of the termination of Sheikh’s employment gave rise to a real possibility he was on leave at the time of the offences, and other documents indicate that the missing documents would have been likely include information bearing directly on the opportunity for the offences to have been committed. As a consequence of these documents being missing the court found that the trial was not fair, and the appeal was allowed.

View Press (news.bbc.co.uk)

View Press (www.telegraph.co.uk)

View Press (innocent.org.uk)

View Press (www.yorkpress.co.uk)

< Back to Case Search < Back to Overview Graph