Court refuses to overturn Bury man’s conviction for filming teens engaged in sex

London's Appeal Court has refused to overturn the conviction of a Greater Manchester man jailed for filming teenage girls having sex with men.

Hashim Hussain was convicted in May 2021 of taking and possessing indecent images of girls aged 16 and 17. But his lawyer claimed the videos were “lawful', arguing that the teens were above the consenting age of 16.

The police stumbled upon Hussain’s offence after he was arrested in October 2017 for suspected driving offences. The seizure of his phone revealed a video showing a man engaged in sexual activity with 'a young, intoxicated female', while being cheered on by others in a park. When the girl asked if the activity was being recorded, she was told it was a “torch”. Another film showed a teen having sex with an older man in a kitchen.

While Hussain, from Bury, denied having recorded the activities, the “distinctive” wristwatch he was wearing at the time of filming revealed his identity as it could be seen in the footage.

Investigators discovered that Hussain and other men regularly met a group of teenage girls in Openshaw Park, in Bury, and bought them vodka before heading to the home of one of the girls.

He was arrested at Manchester Airport in July 2019 after his return from Pakistan, Manchester Evening News reported.

During a four-week trial at Minshull Street Crown Court, defence lawyer Hunter Gray argued that it was “not the recording of a criminal activity" and that the girls were not harmed.

However, Recorder Jeremy Lasker jailed Hussain after concluding he played his part in the “abuse by filming”.

At the Appeal Court, his barrister N Clarke said the conviction should be overturned as the “anomalous” law under which his client was found guilty “criminalises the photographing of activity by a 16-year-old or 17-year-old which is in itself lawful”.

But the jury rejected the appeal, saying: "There may be thought to be a good reason to criminalise the filming of sexual activity by a child aged 16 or 17 which is not in itself criminal.”

Judges Lord Justice Holroyde, Mr Justice Spencer and Mrs Justice Jill said, "The need to protect children against themselves, and the ease with which imagery once recorded can be distributed throughout the life of the child concerned, are obvious considerations which could lead to that conclusion."