AC-2024-LON-001202 and AC-2024-LON-001207 - [2025] EWHC 2810 (Admin)

First, it was not for the PCPs to review the basis of the convictions of MD and SF which had been made to the criminal standard by the Chief Magistrate and upheld on appeal. Save in exceptional circumstances – and none were identified – the PCPs were entitled to proceed on the basis that the convictions were properly entered. Further, in their completed Notice of Referral Forms, both MD and SF admitted the allegations made against them; and that they amounted to “conviction of a relevant offence” and similar admissions were made in the signed Statement of Agreed Facts.

Second, the Crown Court made factual findings as to Mrs Hamouda’s evidence, to the effect that her child was getting “the bulk of her education” from the ACE school (such that the evidence did not assist the Appellants). There is no basis for going behind that finding.

Third, both MD and SF made extensive written submissions to their PCPs and adduced a number of items of evidence. It was open to them to refer to such evidence as they saw fit. MD and SF both referred to the evidence given by the mother of one child (who appears to Mrs Hamouda) to the court. Neither sought to adduce any transcript of Mrs Hamouda’s evidence at the Crown Court (where none of the evidence was transcribed) or adduce even a letter from Mrs Hamouda, still less to call her to give evidence at an oral hearing.