This series of 6 appeals are concerned with Anver Daud Sheikh and St Camillus Care Home, Tadcaster, Operation Juno and perhaps Operation Courier
Cathy Fox Blog Index and Timeline of Court Appeals and Documentation 
Some reports have had victims names redacted and some assault details redacted.
This is a difficult balance- normally I would think that I should not “censor” details but on consultation with various people I have taken the decision to redact. This is mainly to protect victims, their friends and relatives from unnecessary detail and to stop the gratification of those who seek salacious details.
In addition to the obvious “victims redaction” to protect victims, there may also be “assault redacted” across most of the spectrum of abuse. The assaults are left in the charges, but mainly redacted when repeated with reference to the individual.
Some redaction may obscure sometimes the legal reason for the appeal, but should make no large difference to the vital information for researchers that these documents contain. That vital information is mainly names of the perpetrators, past addresses, instituions where assaults occurred, the actual charges the perpetrators faced – on which newspapers are pathetically inaccurate and this information enables the links between people and places and abuse at various times to be ascertained.
Some transcripts may have been subject to automatic reading softwware and whilst effort has been made to correct these, the text should not be regarded as definitive. Alias letters are not transferable between appeals.
If you think that the balance is not correct or that a particular redaction needs reconsideration, please say.
Cathy Fox Blog Index and Timeline of Court Appeals and Documentation 
 EWCA Crim 2235
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
Monday, 14th July 2003
The Vice President
Regina v Anver Daud Sheikh
Computer Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of Smith Bernal Wordwave Limited 190 Fleet Street London EC4A 2AG Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838 (Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
MR BARLOW appeared on behalf of the APPLICANT
(As Approved by the Court)
1. THE VICE PRESIDENT: On 9th May 2002 at York Crown Court, following a trial before His Honour Judge Hoffman, this applicant was convicted on two counts of buggery and on two counts of indecent assault on a male. He was sentenced to a total of 8 years’ imprisonment. He renews his application for leave to appeal against conviction following refusal of leave on grounds which have only one point of similarity with the grounds now advanced, by the Single Judge.
2. The allegations related to two boys who were resident at an approved school owned by the Catholic Social Welfare Society where the applicant was a housemaster. It was the Crown’s case that between 1980 and 1982 the two complainant boys were selected by the applicant as objects of sexual abuse.
3. The defence was that both the boys were lying, one,[A] in order to get compensation, the other,[B] out of bitterness.
4. The grounds which are now sought to be pursued by Mr Barlow, who did not appear at the trial, are set out in substantial volumes of submissions, the second dated 4th July 2003. The first ground, which was before the Single Judge, is critical of the trial judge’s refusal to adjourn the trial because of publicity in relation to another defendant which, it was said, was such as might prejudice the fair trial of this applicant. As it seems to us, this was clearly a matter for exercise of discretion by the trial judge. We have considered the way in which he dealt with it. There is, as it seems to us, no arguable basis on which it could be said that he exercised his discretion wrongly. The first proposed ground of appeal is therefore unarguable.
5. The second ground advanced, not before the Single Judge but by Mr Barlow before us, is that the judge’s directions to the jury, in relation to the delay which had occurred between the alleged incidents and the trial, were inadequate. We have read the directions. We disagree. They were adequate; the second ground is unarguable.
6. Ground 3, again not before the Single Judge but advanced by Mr Barlow, is that, in the context of this case, in the light of the historic nature of the allegations, the judge’s directions with regard to the good character of the defendant were inadequate. We have read those directions. We disagree. The directions, in our judgment, were not, even arguably, inadequate and therefore the third ground is not arguable.
7. The fourth ground raises a quite different matter. It is dependent upon a statement now tendered from a man called Rabani. If that statement is received in evidence and if it is capable of belief, it does afford an arguable ground of appeal. Accordingly, we grant leave to argue that ground, making it clear that we, in no way, predetermine the decision of the constitution of this Court which hears the appeal, as to whether, having regard to the provisions of section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act as amended, that evidence ought to be admitted on the hearing of the appeal.
8. The next ground relates to a statement obtained from a [C] in relation to events at this children’s home and approved school. The statement is a lengthy one. It runs to some 36 paragraphs. Some three or four paragraphs of the statement, as it seems to us, are potentially relevant. We grant leave to argue that ground of appeal, again making it plain that we do not preempt the decision of the constitution which hears the appeal in relation to whether or not the statement of C should be admitted in evidence.
9. So far as the matter referred to in ground 6 of the grounds of appeal are concerned, it does seem to us that that in itself gives rise to a ground for appeal. But, in any event, it is a matter of factual record which is incapable, as it seems to us, of being in dispute. In so far as it is necessary for us to give leave in relation to that ground, we do so.
10. Accordingly, it follows that we grant leave to appeal in relation to those matters which we have identified. We refuse leave to appeal in relation to the other matters.
11. Mr Barlow what is the likely length do you think of the hearing of this appeal?
12. MR BARLOW: The difficulty, my Lord, is of course trying to anticipate the respondent’s view in relation to how they present their arguments and whether or not they will call evidence in rebuttal.
13. THE VICE PRESIDENT: At the moment it could not conceivably last more than a day, could it?
14. MR BARLOW: As it stands prosecution.
15. THE VICE PRESIDENT: As and when the prosecution learn of these matters, that can be subject to review. It will be listed in the ordinary way with an estimate, at the moment, of a day. Do you contemplate anything further in writing on behalf of the appellant?
16. MR BARLOW: Some of it in relation to clarification of matters in relation to unused matters relevant to the issues upon which leave has been given.
17. THE VICE PRESIDENT: I am not following you.
18. MR BARLOW: In relation to material that is held by the prosecution, on the unused schedule. As my Lords will see from my document, the difficulty has been the fact that the unused material in relation to [D] has not been made available. Due to my instructing solicitors writing to the Crown Prosecution Service and asking for assistance, they have kindly before this hearing a list of the unused schedules. It is not clear which schedules were in the hands of the then trial team.
19. In my advice I have sought the assistance of the Court in relation to orders that the appellant is seeking to ask for in support of this appeal. Now, the Crown Prosecution Service indicated their willingness and no difficulty in allowing counsel and instructing solicitors to view unused material in the case of Sheik. It may well be that there is material in there that may become relevant in relation to the fresh evidence. If that is the case, quite clearly, counsel will endeavour, in relation to documentation, to place that in a further document to assist the court.
20. THE VICE PRESIDENT: Quite right. As there is no difficulty in relation to examination of material, when do you contemplate that can be carried out, Mr Barlow?
21. MR BARLOW: Within the next two or three weeks. The difficulty may well be, knowing from the letter the Crown Prosecution Service they indicated, subject to the grounds upon which the Court grants leave, whether or not they will assist by allowing a sight of all the material that was used during Operation Courier and the unused material in Operation Courier.
22. THE VICE PRESIDENT: Speaking entirely for myself, I cannot see how it could conceivably be relevant that you should have all material arising from Operation Courier. Any material which relates to this appellant or to these two complainants, clearly, would be material. But beyond that, speaking entirely for myself, I question the relevance.
23. MR BARLOW: The relevance of what D said. Not only did he name the two complainants in this Court who are concerned, he also named a large number of other residents who were part of, just use the term of (inaudible) who then went on and made allegations against other members of staff who were processed through the court.
24. THE VICE PRESIDENT: Is not the sensible way to deal with this, once the prosecution have had a sight of the judgment which I have given, in due course to have a directions hearing, prior to the hearing of the appeal, in order that any matters in relation to disclosure can be dealt with. We shall direct there shall be a directions hearing, attended by the prosecution as soon as may be after 1st October. An hour will be allowed for that.
25. MR BARLOW: Thank you. If I may move on in relation to the issue ICI CICS [?] set out in my last document. There should be the response from the CICS hand bundle [E] statement, which is located on page 15 of this morning’s bundle my Lord.
26. THE VICE PRESIDENT: I am not clear myself from that letter, why they say they are unable to supply. Is that because they say they have not got it or because they are declining to disclose it?
27. MR BARLOW: We do not know in the letter written by my solicitor, they were seeking clarification whether or not they made applications. It seems unhelpful, at this stage, whether or not there is any information or there is not.
28. THE VICE PRESIDENT: We shall give a direction that the Registrar of this Court will write to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority, directing them to disclose in writing whether or not either of those complainants has applied for compensation and, if so, when.
29. MR BARLOW: Thank you. If I may just finally deal with the representation order that I am seeking. My Lord said I have made an application for leading counsel, silk in this case. In my respectful submission this is a case which is in the interests of the public that that a two certificate, that two counsel including Queen’s Counsel is made in this.
30. THE VICE PRESIDENT: Speaking entirely for myself, I need some persuasion that it needs two counsel. Whether it needs leading counsel can be a matter for debate. Whether leading counsel when he comes into it requires a junior as well I very much doubt.
31. MR BARLOW: I can see the argument in relation to the presentation of the appeal. The difficulty I see is in relation to the viewing of the unused material and dealing with these matters to assist leading counsel in preparing for the actual hearing.
32. THE VICE PRESIDENT: At the moment we do not know how much unused material there is. Is not the answer to grant a representation order for a solicitor and junior counsel at this stage. If, between now and 1st October, it becomes apparent that there is such a huge volume of material or there is some complexity in the case which merits the services of leading counsel, an application can be made on that occasion to extend the representation order.
33. MR BARLOW: My Lord, yes it is simply the question of the time of being enable to —for leading counsel to be instructed to read the material and to consider the points and of course to prepare the skeleton arguments for court. Bearing in mind any response from the Crown in relation to fresh evidence.
34. THE VICE PRESIDENT: What we are looking at at the moment is a directions hearing as soon as possible after 1st October. At that time further directions can be given as to what further written skeletons are required from anybody. At that time it will be known, or there will be a good idea, as to how much, if any, relevant material needs to be considered.
35. MR BARLOW: May be a written application to the Court, if one is to be made, for a change in the order to cover leading counsel.
36. THE VICE PRESIDENT: I do not know about a written application. If counsel is going to be here, as he will be, on the directions, he can open his mouth and ask for it, can he not?
37. MR BARLOW: My Lord, yes. Only one other matter, my Lord, that is in relation to the members of the press to be alive that at York Crown Court the learned trial judge did make an order preventing reporting of the naming of the school in this matter and naming any of the complainants or former residents of that school. I raise that. A sense of precaution so the press are aware that there is such an order because there is still one trial outstanding for Operation Courier.
38. THE VICE PRESIDENT: You are not inviting us to make any other order, you are simply drawing attention to that order which exists at the York Crown Court.
39. MR BARLOW: We do not feel the need to make an order if one is already in existence. I bring it to the attention of the reporter.
40. THE VICE PRESIDENT: I think it has been.
41. MR BARLOW: Thank you very much.
2016 Cathy Fox Blog Index / Timeline of Court Appeals and Documentation 
Please note that victims of abuse may be triggered by reading this information. These links are generally UK based.
- The Sanctuary for the Abused [A] has advice on how to prevent triggers.
- National Association for People Abused in Childhood [B] has a freephone helpline and has links to local support groups.
- Other useful sites are One in Four [C]
- and Havoca [D].
- Useful post on Triggers [E] from SurvivorsJustice [F] blog.
- Jim Hoppers pages on Mindfulness [G] and Meditation [H] may be useful.
- Hwaairfan blog An Indigenous Australian Approach to Healing Trauma [J]
- Survivors UK for victims and survivors of male rape or the sexual abuse of men [K]
- Voicing CSA group [L] helps arrange survivors meetings in your area
 2015 Cathy Fox Blog Index / Timeline of Court Appeals and Documentation https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2015/05/08/a-timeline-of-court-and-ewca-documentation-on-cathy-fox-blog/