Challenging Conviction: A Comprehensive Examination of Concerns

In the Statement of Reason Letter – decision not to refer the conviction, dated 10 September 2019, CCRC confirmed that it had considered all of my submissions, and stated that it did not find any new evidence or argument that significantly undermines the prosecution evidence against me. In reply to this Statement, I would like to respectfully put forth my submission here that may open up the possibility of not upholding my conviction if referred to the appeal court.

There Are Two Areas Of Concern

Section 1. The First Area Is Related To Count One Charges:

Honourable Judge Matthews stated that on Count One charge for convicting the defendant, Adnen Charbib, there has to be a proof of putting a person in fear of violence by harassment. Honourable Judge Matthews stated that it must prove firstly that between those dates, 31 March 2005 and 15 April 2014 that defendant, pursued a course of conduct which involved sending to Katryna emails, text messages, and on one occasion a pair of knickers containing his sperm and pubic hair, or any of those matter. Honourable Judge Matthews further states that dates are not critical but they are an indication of when the prosecution say the course of conduct was pursued. I would like to frame my response within this framework laid out by Honourable Judge Matthews.

In my response, I retain my position so far that I had not sent any of the text messages and certainly had not sent any to Katryna with sexual content. I also would like to raise the fact that Katryna and Svitlana who have access or had access at the relevant time to his home was not taken into consideration while examining the possibility of somebody using my devices, laptops and mobiles. Such a possibility can give rise to the question of collusion between Svitlana and Katryna to frame me in this case, with an ulterior motive of legally Svitlana to the UK and to exclude me from the homer property, which, if investigated properly, will not give rise to proving “a person in fear of violence by harassment” and which, if not done at all or not done properly, can give credibility to the charges against me.

A. First possibility of collusion. There is a possibility overlooked where Svitlana and Katryna have high possibility of gaining access to my devices to send all the concerned text messages and/or emails in order to frame the charges against me in this case:

I. When Svitlana stated in her cross-examination in relation to the question about her access to my mobile and other similar devices that she had used my mobile very occasionally but always under my supervision and that I would log on and log off using my password which were not for general discussion.

II. Svitlana also stated that I did not share my password for either of the mobile or the laptop. In this regard, I would like to point out that that I had given access and pin to our daughter Serene Charbib to iPhone, and login number or password for the Apple devices which is written on a note attached on my desk. The possibility of Katryna and Svitlana having access to these credentials from Serene should also be investigated given that Serena was with them after my divorce with Svitlana and after my exclusion from the home property.

B. Second possibility of collusion. There is a high probability, behind the charges against me, of proving of the ulterior motive of legally immigrating Svitlana to the UK and also to exclude me from the home property:

I. Refer to page 38, email by Katryna’s at 13:45 on 10 August to me, as revealed in her cross-examination:

“Thank you for the effort you have made, I really appreciate it. Hopefully things would be good between us now. I perfectly understand that I’m not a kid anymore and have become more mature. Can you please send me the reservation invoice on my email. Mum forwarded it but it is just really hard to read. When it’s followed it has a lot of folders and it’s hard to understand what it is about.”

My observation: This email should be read with that fact that I refused Svetlina’s request and attempt to make me request my friend Mourad and Nadine, who has an autistic child, to supply Svitlana an invoice that will show her as a Special Needs Consultant and that she stayed in France with Mourad and Nadine to prove she acted as a consultant for them. Doing this, her intend was to make Katryna to be Serene’s carer with total control of her finances. Also, my barrister, Mr Hook did not disclose this to the court my letter and email to Social Service. This is the core reason and trigger of all the sexual harassment and assault cases against me.

II. 6 December 2013 at 16:26 Katryna sent a text to me, as revealed in her cross-examination.

“Hi Adnen. Just to let you in advance. I’m meeting my friend Dasha today and then we will go to a party. It will be too late to come back to Ruislip so I will stay in her place. I do not want you. I suppose I do know won’t you to get angry and think I am sleeping with a man and betray you. I am having a course of treatment which has been prescribed again by my gynaecologist. I can show you meds which I have to take daily. I will be back around 1.00pm tomorrow. I do not want you to get stressed about it because you are already under stress. Thank you for your understanding.”

My observation: The claim by Katryna that this was not sent by her but by Svitlana has to be investigated from the perspective of the possibility of collusion. The investigation has to find out if Dasha is Katryna’s friend or Svetlina’s friend and about the particulars of that particular day.

III. 13 December 2013 at 20:58 message from Katryna to me, as is stated in her cross-examination:

“How are you Adnen? I haven’t seen you for a while now. I can see you working hard. I just want to say hello to you. Have you found out if anything for me will be available like going around escort but strictly no sex related offers. Let me know please. Going with Mum to a party tomorrow. See you tomorrow. K’. Did you write that text?”

a. Kartyna’s explanation for this email:

“She made have meant a companion because at that time the son of Adnen’s friend sheikh was coming to London, a boy of 19 years’ old and he needed someone to show the city. So Mum thought it would be a good opportunity for me to meet an interesting person and just show the city because I know London quite well.”

My observation: The claim by Katryna that this was not sent by her but by Svitlana has to be investigated from the perspective of the possibility of collusion. The part of the text “Going with Mum to a party tomorrow” self-contradicts Katryna’s claim that the text was sent by Svitlana.

IV. 13 December 2013 at 20:58, page 10 - page 11, message from Katryna to me, as is stated in her cross-examination:

“Hi Adnen. I would just like to let you know in advance that I will be involved in some photo sessions with my friend. It will take place in the morning until evening for one day. I will be staying with my friend Dasha and we’ll be sleeping at her flat. It’s near the location of the shoot. I do not want you to get upset and say that I am betraying you or having sex with other man. I am planning to come back on Thursday. Thank you for your lovely food this week, it is very delicious. I cannot pick up S2 on those day from the school however I can pick her up today’. Again, did you write that text as opposed to sending it?”

My observation: The claim by Katryna that this was not sent by her but Svitlana by stating that Svitlana sent her the message or texted her the message and she copied it and sent from her phone without reading it to me, has to be investigated from the perspective of the possibility of collusion. There is a need to find out about the details of the shoot mentioned in the text, whether it is Katryna or Svitlana who was involved. Katryna in her cross examinations statement stated that Svitlana knew the emails I allegedly sent to Katryna in 2013 as well as about text messages in 2013, 2014. The emails listed under this part and my observation have to be read with the email in the next section and my observation against that email, which will give rise to collusion between Katryna and Svitlana in framing me and soliciting messages from me by sending messages that they claim were to be “nice and friendly with him and polite because she said that he is a very unpredictable and unstable and violent person, so it’s better to keep him calm and us to be safe that otherwise you never know what might have happened”, as was stated by Katryna in her cross-examination. All these tactics may have been used to keep me occupied and manipulate me in not taking up any objections to their scheme, as described under the Second possibility of collusion of achieving the ulterior motive of legally immigrating Svitlana to the UK and also to exclude me from the home property with the tactics used as described under the First possibility of collusion.

As you will see in the coming paragraphs, which shows Svitlana and Katryna had retained the messages for a long duration of time. I would like to stated that this retention is for the sole purpose of building up a story to achieve what they planned for as listed under my observation here.

C. Third possibility of collusion (to be read with the First and the Second possibility of collusion). This question arises considering the fact that Katryna retained messages (2012-2013) and forwarded them to Svitlana.

My Observation: In this regard my claim is that such retention is for the sole purpose of building up a story to achieve what they planned for as listed under my observations as mentioned above. Additional fact is that in the Court Submission 7, in the course of Katryna giving evidence, there was an exchange of emails between her and this officer PC Hannant that shows bias being exercised by the officer and that was completely unacceptable behaviour on behalf of the police officer. If taken separately, this incident may only be termed a breach of applicable code of duties. But in totality and reading with the First and Second Collusions, this also affects my case giving credibility to the charges against me.

D. Fourth possibility of collusion (to be read with the First and the Second possibility of collusion). Under this collision, I would like to raise a few questions that have to be investigated and answered by the concerned authorities.

I. Parcel bag that Kartyna allegedly received and allegedly containing a pair of knickers containing my sperm and pubic hair, around Christmas 2005. When Svitlana was cross-examined, she said that:

“she had a suitcase and it had a padlock and she said the key accompanied the suitcase, that is the key to the padlock. ‘I did not see him put anything into the suitcase. I bought all the items including the items which had been stained. I think I bought most of them in M&S. They were bought in 2005, not in 2014. Since he moved out of the bedroom, she confirmed in cross-examination that they had not slept together since and had no sexual intercourse [or any form of sleeping?]. She had not obtained his sperm and placed it on the underwear as it was alleged.

My Observation: The statement of Svitlana shows itself that I could not have put those items that they alleged to be mine. Another possibility of somebody putting any those items arises from that fact that Svitlana sends Kartyna parcels from London to Kiev via the bus and not the post, which leaves an opportunity opened to a person to plant those items alleged to be mine.

II. Kartyna’s retention of the parcel bag since 2005. In her statement during cross-examination, Katryna claimed that the reason for retaining those items, alleged to be mine and alleged to be sent my me to her, was “those things could not just be neglected. I decided to keep them.” She kept “them until spring 2014 until I made the allegation against Adnen Charbib on 11 April where I gave it to the police”. In March, April 2014 that my marriage with Svitlana had completely broken down by that point.

My observation: The purpose of such retention has to be read with My Observation under Third possibility of collusion (to be read with the First and the Second possibility of collusion) and the timing of the allegations. In her statement during cross-examination, Svitlana stated that she “bought all the items including the items which had been stained. I think I bought most of them in M&S. They were bought in 2005, not in 2014.” Few points that I would like to raise here:

a. There should be scientific evidence to determine whether the pair of knickers allegedly containing my sperm and pubic hair is mine or not.

b. Honourable Judge Matthews stated that “police received it on 11 April and the scientists received it on 20 August, and what it was is a bag containing a white lacy sports type bra and a pink lacy floral pattern thong with the tag still attached.”

c. Honourable Judge Matthews stated that the hairs were not examined further and tests were conducted on the thong for the presence of semen.

d. Only the underwear was tested. All the other items should have been tested too, if tested, there was a possibility of finding contamination, as was confirmed by Keith Borer Consultants, 21 Feb 2018.

e. My solicitor, Mark Bagshaw denied me both medical and forensic experts to attend my trial.

f. In 2005 at the time of the alleged offence, Sanrio the manufacturers of Hello Kitty brand underwear had confirmed that the pair of knickers was not on sale at the time in Marks and Spencers where Svetlana in evidence stated it was purchased in 2005. Therefore, there is a possibility, Svetlana purchased sometimes in 2014 a pair of knickers later when they came in the market and she obtained my semen because we were still sleeping together and having sexual intercourse from time to time, to stain the clothing with my semen. There is therefore a chance that Svetlana collected my semen during our sexual encounter before our marriage broke down completely and before they filed a police complaint.

Section 2. The Second Area Is Related To Count Two And Three Charges:

Count Two and Count Three are allegations of sexual assault. In this regard, I would like to emphasis and respectfully give my objection to the statement of Honourable Judge Matthews that the dates are not critical. My point here is if the dates are considered not critical, it gives credibility to the charges against me, which would otherwise have given credibility to my defence.

My Observation: I would like to point out the statement of Katryna in her cross-examination that she specifically mentioned January 30, 2014, the date she alleged that I sexually assaulted her. She referred to her visit to Paul Smith’s exhibition in the design museum that serves her memory of the date on which the alleged sexual assault occurred. Honourable Judge Matthews stated that prosecution must prove the sexual assault, if at all happened, happened intentionally and deliberately. In relevance and against these statements, I would like to point out that, as was my response to Prosecuting Barrister during my cross-examination of my whereabouts on January 30, I went to see my neighbour and to buy Serine a toy for her birthday on 2nd February. Unfortunately, Mr, Hook did not show the jury my bank statement to support my statement and showed my movements that day. Furthermore, I have confirmation from the organisers that there was no Paul Smith exhibition on that particular day. This was also, unfortunately, not revealed by Mr. Hook.

I would like to re-emphasis that dates are critical. Count Three refers to an alleged sexual assault between 30/11/2013 and 01/04/2014. Katryna’s family court statement asserts that she arrived in the UK on 5 December 2013. I could therefore not have committed the alleged assault between 30/11/2013 and 05/12/2013.

My Request And Appeal

Based on the given two areas of concern that I have raised above, I personally believe that there has not been a fair trial and that is sufficient reason to treat my case as under exceptional circumstance. I would, therefore, pray that I should be given access to fair trial and investigation, according to the rights under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Human Rights Act 1998. In pursuit of my right, and appealing to revisit and reexamine my observations as laid out above under Section 1 and Section 2, I appeal to have my following rights granted:

I. Right to be properly represented

II. Right to have proper presentation and examination of evidence, including forensic evidence

III. Right to have proper investigation of the witness and evidence to understand the motives vis-à-vis the collusion points presented under Section 1.

IV. Right to have all necessary statements, documents, and evidences properly presented and examined

V. In totality, right to have proper investigation of evidences, statements, and forensic evidences, as laid under Section 1 and Section 2, and to properly read and examine them together with of all the texts, emails and other communication and statements from the cross-examinations with the sole purpose of avoiding unsafe rulings.

Looking for further insights on Certainty of Objects in Trusts? Click here.