This series of 6 appeals concerns 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 628
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London, WC2
Tuesday, 9th March 2004
Lord Justice Kennedy
Regina v Anver Daud Sheikh
Computer Aided Transcript of the Palantype 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 M BARLOW appeared on behalf of the APPELLANT
MR J GOOSE QC appeared on behalf of the CROWN
(As approved by the Court)
1. LORD JUSTICE KENNEDY: This matter came before this court on 5th February 2004 when the appeal against conviction was allowed. It was a conviction which related to a period between 1979 and 1983. It is therefore relating to alleged offences a long time ago.
2. The allegations were made by two men now, boys then, who were resident at a children’s home where the appellant was working as a house master. [A] was then aged about 14 and [B] was of similar age. When the case was presented in the crown court, A spoke about his problems (and here I quote from the judgment of this court on the last occasion) and he said that the appellant listened. A said that he had told the appellant that a boy called [C], a [redacted] boy from Sheffield, had beaten him up and was going to do it again. He described the appellant’s reaction to that information.
3. When the matter came before the court, there was fresh evidence which disclosed that C had been admitted to the home on 13th August 1981 and was therefore not there at the same time as the appellant. That was material which was not available to the defence at the time of trial. The Crown rightly conceded, on the last occasion, that it was important information which rendered the case as presented at trial defective. The Crown conceded that the conviction was unsafe because the jury considered A’s position and were rightly invited by the trial judge to consider the position of the two complainants alongside each other. It followed that if the conviction of A was unsafe, it had a knock-on effect on the conviction relating to B.
4. At the time when the matter was before us on the last occasion we simply did not know what the two complainants might say about this additional information, and that was why we suggested that they should be interviewed under controlled conditions and that has happened. One obvious possibility was that when the information was put to A, his reaction would be such as to render any evidence that he might give unworthy of further consideration.
5. Suffice it to say that not only counsel but we have transcripts of what happened when the information was put to A and we have had an opportunity, as counsel has, to look at that video recorded interview. It will be a matter for others to decide what to make of it, but from this court’s point of view it is quite clear that it did not have the disastrous effect which we envisaged as a possibility on the last occasion.
6. We do not propose to go further than that. It seems to us that here are two serious offences alleged against this man. They are alleged to have been committed a long time ago. If the allegations are right, he should be convicted and he should serve a sentence of the kind which was imposed upon him at the end of his trial. If those allegations are not properly brought, then a jury should decide that they are not properly brought and he is entitled to his acquittal. It is not for this court to prejudge one way or the other what a jury will decide if, as we order, this matter goes back for retrial and the trial proceeds. The function of this court is only to intervene and prevent a retrial if the circumstances are such that in reality it is clear what the outcome will be or, alternatively, it would be oppressive to send the matter back for retrial. It would be oppressive if, for example, this man had now served a period of imprisonment equivalent to his appropriate sentence, but that is not the case.
7. Accordingly we have, having carefully considered the matter and the observations made to us by counsel on both sides, come to the conclusion that the appropriate course here is to make the usual order in respect of retrial.
8. The order therefore, having on the last occasion allowed the appeal and quashed the conviction, is that a fresh indictment be preferred; that the appellant be re-arraigned on the fresh indictment within a period of two months; that he remain on bail pending re-arraignment. We make a representation order at this stage for junior counsel and solicitor for the purposes of trial, and the trial will be heard at such crown court centre as may be directed by the presiding judges of the North Eastern circuit.
9. Mr Barlow, I am conscious of the fact that you did put in your helpful skeleton argument something about whether it would be appropriate for two counsel. You may address us if you wish. I think you may have difficulty, having regard to the constraints under which we all operate.
10. MR BARLOW: My Lord, yes. Perhaps that can be considered and when this matter is brought before the crown court for that matter, if it is going to be raised again, to be raised then.
11. LORD JUSTICE KENNEDY: Thank you very much.
12. MR BARLOW: But I am grateful my Lords.
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/