Holloway drinker flashes penis and blames it on the beer

A DRUNKEN flasher who claimed his jogging bottoms fell down because he had a can of beer in his pocket has lost an appeal against his conviction.

Ilker Hassan, 45, showed his penis to a female neighbour and threatened a passer-by, the Court of Appeal in London heard today.

Hassan, of Georges Road, Holloway, was jailed for three months at Blackfriars Crown Court in December last year after he was found guilty of indecent exposure.

Three senior judges today rejected an appeal by his lawyers that the conviction was “unsafe” due to comments made during his trial.

Mrs Justice Rafferty told the court a neighbour of Hassan’s looked out of her window in August last year and saw him with his trousers lowered and his shirt pulled up. He shouted “Oi! Look at me, I’m flashing”, before the woman turned away.

She said Hassan was also spotted by an off-duty policeman from his window, and shouted “what are you are looking at? You want me to f*** you?” at another passer-by.

Hassan, who had 32 previous convictions, claimed he could not remember anything about the incident because he had been drinking. He said his comments must have been made in jest.

Most Read

The 45-year-old maintained he was not the sort of person to flash anyone, especially as he was embarrassed about a disfigurement to what the judge called his “not insubstantial belly”.

At his trial he claimed he had lost the waist cord from his jogging bottoms, which could have fallen down because he had a can of beer and a phone charger in his pockets. The court heard wearing underwear was “not in his fashion”.

This week lawyers for Hassan said that on several occasions during his trial the crown court judge used the word “revel” or “reveling” to describe Hassan’s behaviour.

They claimed the word echoed the prosecution’s version of events, and prejudiced the jury against Hassan.

Mrs Justice Rafferty, sitting with Lord Justice Richards and Judge David Paget QC, rejected those claims and upheld the conviction.

She said: “The judge’s comments do not cross the boundary of legitimate judicial comment, and the jury had been fully and properly directed that evidence was entirely its domain and it should disregard any judicial comments with which it did not agree.”