CPS News Brief

“Holy man” who sexually assaulted woman during naked healing ritual is jailed

A self-appointed holy man has today been sentenced at Birmingham Crown Court to two years’ imprisonment after he pleaded guilty to sexually assaulting a woman during a supposed “healing ritual” in her home in February 2014.

Syed Shah, aged 29, from Stechford, Birmingham visited the victim and ordered her to undress, and then under the guise of healing her he sexually assaulted her.

The victim notified the police and Shah was arrested. He denied being anywhere near to the location of the assault, however, his mobile phone data was analysed which then put him near to the scene of the crime.

The defendant was subsequently charged and pleaded guilty to sexual assault.

Claire Nicholls, Senior Crown Prosecutor from the West Midlands CPS Rape and Serious Sexual Offences Unit, said:

“Syed Shah promoted himself within his local community as a holy man and therefore someone who had a position of responsibility and more importantly trust. He breached this trust and preyed on a vulnerable victim who he assaulted for his own personal sexual gratification. He used his position of authority as a holy man and healer to pressurise the victim into consenting to sexual acts. This meant she did not consent freely which is required in law.

“I would like to take this opportunity of thanking the victim who came forward and supported the prosecution case which has enabled us to bring to justice a very dangerous sexual predator.”

Response to reports in The Sun Newspaper - 16 October 2015

A number of inaccurate claims have been made in The Sun newspaper today, which we have clarified below.

The Sun has reported in its editorial that the Director of Public Prosecutions ‘upped the efforts’ in Operation Elveden. This is not true. In fact, in April this year, a comprehensive re-review of Operation Elveden was held in light of a Court of Appeal judgement and the Director decided that the CPS would offer no evidence in cases against nine journalists, and instead only proceed against three.

In addition, the editorial claims that the Director let Tom Watson ‘bully’ her into investigating allegations about Leon Brittan. Not only does the CPS not carry out investigations, as we have previously made clear, the CPS at no point made any request to the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) that they reopen their investigation into Lord Brittan. As we have already outlined to The Sun, Lord Brittan was interviewed by the MPS before the CPS had forwarded correspondence from Mr Watson relating to the allegations made.

As is normal when we receive correspondence relating to operational police matters, the letter from Mr Watson was forwarded by CPS London staff to the relevant officer for their information. It is for the police to decide whether or not, or how, they will investigate an allegation that is referred to them. The CPS has no power to direct them and did not seek to do so.

Finally, the Sun misrepresents the Director’s comments in relation to complaints of rape and sexual assault. The Director has always made it clear that it is for the prosecution to prove the guilt of a defendant, including in cases of rape and sexual assault. We ask what made the defendant reasonably believe that consent was given, and what made the complainant think that it was not. There is certainly no assumption that any woman who wakes up with lack of memory of the night before has a rape case to pursue. The burden of proof has not changed and the law is clear – it is for the prosecution to prove that an offence takes place. This misrepresentation perpetuates the damaging myth that rape prosecutions take place if a woman simply regrets her actions of the night before. That is simply not the case.

Operation Elveden retrial of Jamie Pyatt and Chris Pharo

A CPS spokesperson said,

“After careful consideration, following the re-review of Operation Elveden this year, the Crown Prosecution Service determined that the case against Jamie Pyatt and Chris Pharo met both the evidential and public interest requirements of the Code, so this matter was put before a jury.

“It is right that a jury, rather than the CPS, decides whether a defendant is guilty or not. The CPS is duty-bound to prosecute cases which provide a realistic prospect of conviction and are in the public interest. This test is significantly different to that of a jury, which must only convict if they are assured of guilt beyond all reasonable doubt. The case was allowed by the judge to progress to a full trial and we respect the verdict of the jury today.

“This case in particular involved allegations of multiple payments to a corrupt public official in areas where the public should generally expect confidentiality.”