The Fake Sheikh, Phone Hacking and Miscarriages of Justice Caused by Unlawful & Illegal Actions, Malicious Prosecution's & Serious Disclosure Failures by The Police and Crown Prosecution Service:
Why I Believe My 1999 Fake Sheikh Mazher Mahmood News of the World related Criminal Conviction’s are Unsafe & How I was Wrongfully Convicted with Perjurious Lies which illustrate need for Leveson 2
Unsafe Criminal Conviction’s Built on Deception?
In 1998, I became the subject of a fabricated exposé in the News of the World by undercover journalist Mazher Mahmood, the man who became nationally known as “The Fake Sheikh”.
The newspaper portrayed me as a dangerous criminal: a drug dealer, supplier of counterfeit money, Uzi gun salesman, pimp and pornographer.
Those false allegations destroyed my reputation overnight.
Yet after more than a quarter of a century, evidence that has emerged through subsequent legal proceedings, including disclosure obtained during my litigation “Alex Smith v NGN” against News Group Newspapers, raises profound questions about the conduct of Mahmood, his associates, the integrity of the evidence used against me, and whether my convictions can possibly be regarded as safe.
This is the story of why I maintain that I was wrongfully convicted.
The Original Criminal Case
Following the News of the World article published on 12 April 1998, I was arrested and ultimately charged with two counts of delivering counterfeit coins contrary to the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981.
From the moment I was charged, I pleaded not guilty.
https://fakesheikhexposed.wordpress.com/2026/02/09/rupert-murdochs-phone-hacking-serial-liar-fake-sheikh-mazher-mahmood-exposed/
I maintained my innocence throughout the entire pre-trial process and continued to do so until the first day of my trial on 1 February 1999.
It was only at that point, having been, I now know badly advised that an entrapment argument had no realistic prospect of success and that Mahmood would not be compelled to reveal his sources or methods, that I changed my plea to guilty with mitigation.
At the time, I believed I had no practical way of proving that Mahmood’s entire operation had been constructed around me, and that he had no genuine criminal intelligence source beyond information that I myself had provided to him.
On 1st March 1999, I received two sentences of six months imprisonment, to run concurrently.
Despite that conviction, I have never accepted that I was guilty of the crimes alleged. I have maintained my innocence every day since.
The Truth That Emerged Decades Later
Many years later, during the MTVIL litigation concerning unlawful voicemail interception and other unlawful information gathering by journalists at News Group Newspapers, I was approached by legal representatives acting for claimants.
They informed me that receipts had come to light showing that Mahmood had commissioned private investigators to unlawfully gather information about me, including evidence that private investigator Glenn Mulcaire had hacked my mobile telephone voicemail messages.
As a result, on 30 September 2022, I issued legal proceedings (Alex Smith v NGN) against News Group Newspapers.
During the disclosure process in that case, I was provided with extensive material, including:
Covert video recordings;
Covert audio recordings;
Internal documents;
Photographs;
Payment records & Receipts;
Other evidence relating to the operation conducted against me.
In my view, these materials fundamentally undermine the narrative presented by Mahmood and the News of the World.
The Hidden Role of Mahmood’s Team
The evidence disclosed shows that individuals around me, including my publicist at the time, were secretly being paid by Mahmood’s organisation.
Payment records show that the person who was supposed to be acting in my interests was in fact receiving thousands of pounds for involvement in the operation against me.
This raises a fundamental question:
Was I investigating and exposing a journalist (as I thought I was), or was I being manipulated by an organised journalistic sting operation involving individuals secretly working for the newspaper?
The evidence now available suggests the latter.
The Counterfeit Coins: A Chain of Evidence That Cannot Be Trusted
The alleged counterfeit coin transactions are surrounded by serious inconsistencies.
The first encounter involved three £1 coins that I handed over from my own pocket.
I maintain those three coins were genuine.
Video evidence records Mahmood commenting that they were “the best fakes he had ever seen” — a statement that, in my view, is entirely consistent with them being genuine coins.
Yet those three coins were not immediately provided to police.
They were allegedly retained by Mahmood for seventeen days before being handed over on 19 April 1998.
The second transaction involved 1,000 coins that I collected from a source that I was directed towards by individuals connected with Mahmood’s operation, using money that Mahmood had supplied in advance.
Again, those coins were not immediately passed to the police.
They remained under the control of Mahmood and his team until a full week after the sensational News of the World article had already been published.
This raises obvious concerns about continuity and preservation of evidence.
(It also raises the question of why did Mahmood not get charged for keeping hold of the coins for which he had no lawful reason or excuse to do so under the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981)
A proper criminal prosecution depends upon a reliable chain of custody.
Yet the documentation contains conflicting figures:
Rarely if ever is the evidence recorded as 1,003 coins (3 plus 1,000);
Sometimes it is recorded as 1,000;
Other records state 997 plus 3 coins;
Others record 996 plus 3 coins, totalling 999.
Three coins repeatedly disappear from the official narrative.
If the three missing coins were the original coins I provided and they were genuine, that would be potentially exculpatory evidence.
The inconsistencies raise serious questions about whether the evidence was properly handled.
Were the Coins Ever Properly Tested?
Further questions arise concerning whether the alleged counterfeit coins were ever examined by the Royal Mint.
The Royal Mint has confirmed to me that it maintains records covering the relevant period from 1988 to 1999.
However, according to correspondence I have received, it has no records relating to the alleged counterfeit pound coins involved in my case.
This raises the possibility that no forensic examination was ever carried out.
If the coins were never properly tested, a fundamental question remains unanswered:
Were the coins actually counterfeit at all?
Mahmood Was Not Merely Reporting the Story — He Helped Create It
The disclosure material demonstrates that Mahmood and his associates were far more deeply involved in the events than was ever presented.
The evidence indicates:
Money was supplied to me in advance to enable the purchase of the coins;
Individuals connected to Mahmood directed me toward the source;
People around me were secretly working for Mahmood;
The operation involved extensive covert surveillance and unlawful information gathering.
This raises a serious issue: whether the alleged criminal conduct was detected by journalists or whether it was actively engineered by them.
Allegations of Drink Manipulation
The covert recordings show Mahmood’s team repeatedly supplying copious amounts of alcohol to me, including occasions where I attempted to refuse drinks.
It seems that News of the World reporters were encouraged to get their targets drunk to make them more talkative and easier to manipulate into doing things they most likely would normally never have dreamed of doing…
The footage also shows members of his team mixing vodka with orange juice.
In addition, I have obtained a statement from a former associate of Mahmood who alleges that he witnessed Mahmood drugging individuals during undercover operations.
I therefore believe that I may have been drugged during the course of the operation.
Whether that allegation can be independently proven remains a matter requiring proper investigation, but the existence of this evidence raises further questions about the conduct of the operation.
Indeed Phone Hacking Lawyer Mark Lewis whilst appearing on Television with another Mahmood Victim Emma Morgan made mention of the fact that Mahmood Drugged peoples drink to make them more easily manipulated
False Quotations and a Fabricated Public Image
The News of the World article attributed numerous statements to me.
However, comparison with the covert recordings disclosed during the litigation shows that these quotations were either never said by me or were edited and presented in a way that changed their meaning.
The article also portrayed me as controlling women who were sent to Mahmood’s hotel.
The disclosed footage, however, demonstrates that the women were not working for me, did not know me, and had simply attended after a telephone call was made to a local massage service advertised in a newspaper.
The image presented to millions of readers was therefore, in my view, a false and deliberately sensationalised characterisation.
A Journalist Whose Credibility Had Already Collapsed
Perhaps one of the most disturbing issues is that concerns about Mahmood’s honesty existed long before my trial.
Documents that later came to light indicate that, following the collapse of an earlier case in 1994, police and CPS correspondence recorded serious concerns about relying upon Mahmood as a truthful witness.
A document from News Group Newspapers’ archives disclosed during later litigation reportedly stated that he could not and should not ever again be relied upon as a witness of truth.
Despite this, I was never provided with that information before my trial.
Had this material been disclosed to me under the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996, I would never have changed my plea.
I would have continued to contest the allegations and sought to challenge Mahmood’s credibility before a jury.
A Continuing Failure of Disclosure
At the end of 2025, I contacted the Crown Prosecution Service requesting disclosure of material relating to Mahmood’s previous failed cases and reminding them of their obligations under the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996.
The response I received was that they would not engage further with me and would not provide disclosure because I had entered a guilty plea.
In my view, this ignores the reality that my plea was entered only on the first day of trial and only after being denied access to information that would have fundamentally altered my defence.
A guilty plea obtained in circumstances where crucial exculpatory material has not been disclosed cannot automatically remove the question of whether a conviction is safe.
Criminal Cases Review Commission CCRC delays investigating the Miscarriage of Justice that are my UNSAFE Convictions caused by a Malicious Prosecution & Serious Disclosure Failures of Police & CPS
The above letter which I received via email from the Criminal Cases Review Commission today Tuesday 2nd June 2026 speaks for itself really..
News Group Newspapers’ Settlement and Apology
My civil claim against News Group Newspapers was ultimately resolved through a Part 36 settlement in late 2024.
In early 2025, News Group Newspapers issued me with a private letter of apology and authorised me to provide that letter to the Criminal Cases Review Commission and the Court of Appeal.
That apology, together with the disclosure obtained during the litigation, provides material that was never available to me during my criminal proceedings.
Why My Conviction Must Now Be Reconsidered
The safety of my conviction must be considered in light of the complete picture, not the limited and misleading picture available in 1998 & 1999.
These Serious issues include:
Undisclosed evidence undermining the credibility of the prosecution’s key witness;
Evidence that Mahmood and his team were involved in creating the circumstances of the alleged offences;
Unlawful surveillance and phone hacking conducted against me;
Payments to people close to me who influenced my actions;
Conflicting records concerning the alleged counterfeit coins;
An apparent lack of reliable forensic examination;
Serious questions over the chain of custody of the evidence;
Evidence suggesting that the newspaper article contained little else but fabricated and/or misleading quotations.
No jury in a modern court could properly assess the fairness of this conviction without seeing the full truth.
For over twenty-eight years since the fabricated nonsense article appeared in News of the World in April 1998 I have maintained that I was not and am not the criminal portrayed by the News of the World.
The evidence that has emerged since then does not merely raise questions about the behaviour of a journalist.
It raises a far more serious question:
Whether the British justice system allowed convictions to stand that were built upon concealed evidence, unreliable testimony, and a media operation that crossed the line from investigation into participation.
That is why I say my conviction is unsafe.
And that is why I continue to seek justice.
As a Thought experiment I asked the Legal AI Open-Case what it thought about the circumstances of my case and this is the reply that it gave me today 15th June 2026.
Draft memorandum: why the convictions may be unsafe, and what can be done
Important note: This is a research and drafting exercise, not legal advice. The below is framed as a draft memorandum that can be refined for a fresh application to the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 and/or a reference to the Criminal Cases Review Commission Act 1995 / Criminal Appeal Act 1995 regime. Because the available material is incomplete, the strongest points are presented as potential grounds of safety rather than definitive findings.
Short answer: On the material you have described, there are potentially serious arguments that the conviction is unsafe because it may have been produced by a combination of entrapment, nondisclosure, evidential unreliability, and a plea entered without full knowledge of material facts. Under Criminal Appeal Act 1968, the Court of Appeal must allow an appeal if it considers the conviction unsafe. The key issue is not simply whether you believe you were framed, but whether the totality of the undisclosed and newly discovered material would cause the conviction to be regarded as unsafe when viewed in the round.
1. The legal test: “unsafe” is the governing question
The Court of Appeal’s task is statutory. Under Criminal Appeal Act 1968 s 2(1), the appeal must be allowed if the court thinks the conviction is unsafe. The modern approach is to look at the whole case “in the round”.
The Court is not confined to the original trial materials; it can consider fresh evidence and all relevant matters bearing on safety.
The Committee evidence summarising modern practice records that the Court of Appeal treats the question as whether the conviction is unsafe, and that this permits the court to consider “any aspect of the proceedings” without artificial distinctions between “unsatisfactory”, “material”, or other older formulations.
This matters because the points you raise are cumulative:
alleged unlawful journalistic conduct and hidden manipulation;
alleged undisclosed payments to third parties;
alleged interference with, or unreliability in, the chain of custody of the coins;
alleged absence of proper forensic handling;
alleged false or misleading reporting to police/CPS;
alleged prior cases showing Mahmood’s unreliability;
a guilty plea entered only after advice said an entrapment argument would fail and disclosure would not be available.
A conviction can be unsafe even where the defendant may have committed some wrongdoing, if the proceedings were so compromised that the conviction cannot safely stand.
2. Guilty plea does not end the inquiry
A guilty plea makes the position harder, but it does not necessarily make the conviction unassailable. A conviction entered on a plea may still be unsafe if the plea was not truly informed, voluntary, or properly based on the facts as they were actually known. That is especially so where the plea was entered after material nondisclosure or erroneous legal advice about the availability of an abuse of process, entrapment, or disclosure-based defence.
The significance of your case is that you say:
you pleaded not guilty until the first day of trial;
you changed plea only because you were told an entrapment defence would not work;
you were told Mahmood would not have to reveal his sources;
you were therefore deprived of the opportunity to test the true basis of the prosecution case.
If those matters are supported by evidence, they may go to whether the plea can safely found a conviction.
3. Entrapment / abuse of process: the core principle
The leading authority is R v Looseley; Attorney General’s Reference (No 3 of 2000) [2001] UKHL 53, [2001] 1 WLR 2060. The House of Lords held that the criminal process should not be used where state agents have lured a person into offending in a way that offends the administration of justice.
Lord Nicholls emphasised that the key issue is whether police or law-enforcement conduct was so seriously improper as to bring the administration of justice into disrepute. While undercover operations may be lawful where they provide merely an unexceptional opportunity to offend, the state must not create crime by pressure, inducement, or improper manipulation.
The Court of Appeal has applied the same approach in cases including R v Moore [2013] EWCA Crim 85:
“It is simply not acceptable that the state through its agents should lure its citizens into committing acts forbidden by the law and then seek to prosecute them for doing so.”
On the facts you describe, the best entrapment/abuse arguments are:
There was active inducement rather than passive observation.
You say money was given upfront, a publicist aligned with Mahmood pressed you, and drinks were repeatedly supplied.The conduct went beyond creating an unexceptional opportunity.
If the covert team engineered the transaction, supplied the means, and manipulated the circumstances, that may be more than merely detecting existing criminality.If you were not otherwise intending to commit the offence, the case is stronger.
The question is whether the undercover operation merely provided an opportunity or actually created the offence.Earlier warnings about Mahmood’s unreliability may matter.
If the police/CPS knew or should have known of prior misconduct or unreliability, that goes to the fairness of relying on his evidence.
4. Disclosure failures: potentially serious if material to plea and trial strategy
In criminal proceedings, disclosure is central to fairness. Where material is withheld that could have supported a defence, undermined the prosecution, or affected plea advice, the resulting conviction may be unsafe.
Your asserted disclosure issues include:
covert videos and audio recordings were not disclosed at the time;
payment records and instructions to third parties were not disclosed;
material about prior cases involving Mahmood’s credibility was not disclosed;
the prosecution may not have disclosed the absence of any Royal Mint forensic record;
chain-of-custody documentation appears inconsistent.
If those matters were in the possession of the prosecution or should have been disclosed under the then-applicable disclosure regime, they may materially strengthen an unsafe-conviction argument.
The practical significance is that a defendant’s decision to plead guilty may be undermined where disclosure failures prevent informed assessment of the evidence.
5. Chain of custody and forensic irregularities
You describe multiple inconsistencies:
the number of coins is variously recorded as 999, 1,000, 1,003, 996+3, or 997+3;
the 3 coins allegedly from 2 April were not handed over until 19 April;
the 1,000 coins allegedly delivered on 9 April were also not promptly preserved;
there is no confirmed forensic testing by the Royal Mint;
Royal Mint records reportedly do not match the prosecution narrative.
Those points may not by themselves prove innocence, but they are potentially important because the prosecution case depended on proof that the coins were counterfeit and were the same objects allegedly delivered by you. If there are genuine gaps or contradictions in the continuity of possession, forensic handling, or item identification, then the evidential foundation of the conviction is weakened.
At the appellate level, this kind of issue matters because the court is concerned with whether the conviction remains safe after considering the reliability of the physical evidence and its handling.
6. Reliability and credibility of Mahmood as a witness
You say you have material showing:
Mahmood made statements in the article that were not true;
he recorded and edited material in ways inconsistent with reality;
he failed to disclose relevant sources and payments;
earlier cases had already raised concerns about his reliability;
there is documentary material going back to at least 1994 showing he should not have been treated as a witness of truth.
If a key prosecution witness was unreliable and the prosecution case depended materially on that witness, the conviction may be unsafe. The significance is amplified if the witness’s conduct was concealed from the defence.
The Committee evidence you provided notes that the Court of Appeal considers the case in the round and can quash where, taking the new material with the old, the conviction is unsafe.
7. The plea was arguably entered on a mistaken factual and legal basis
This may be one of the strongest points.
You say you changed your plea because:
counsel advised entrapment would fail;
you were told Mahmood would not have to disclose his sources;
you lacked the material necessary to challenge the prosecution;
you believed you could not prove the truth because the covert material was hidden.
If that is correct, the question becomes whether the plea was truly informed. A plea entered in ignorance of material facts or under materially incomplete legal advice can found an argument that the conviction is unsafe.
The significance is especially acute if the newly discovered evidence demonstrates that:
the prosecution case was incomplete or misleading;
the covert operation was more extensive than disclosed;
the state or the journalist’s team concealed relevant information;
you would likely have maintained a not guilty plea had you known.
8. What should be done now
The appropriate steps depend on procedural posture, but the following are the usual routes:
A. Apply to the Criminal Cases Review Commission
If you have not already secured a referral, the Criminal Appeal Act 1995 framework is designed for cases where new evidence or argument creates a real possibility that the conviction would not be upheld.
The CCRC can consider whether there is a real possibility that the conviction would not be upheld were the new material presented. The material you describe appears potentially relevant to:
undisclosed covert recordings;
undisclosed payments and investigative methods;
prior credibility material;
chain-of-custody irregularities;
whether the plea was safe.
B. Seek a referral to the Court of Appeal
If the CCRC refers the case, the Court of Appeal must determine whether the conviction is unsafe under Criminal Appeal Act 1968 s 2. The court will assess the case in the round.
C. Seek disclosure and expert analysis
The following should be requested and, where possible, independently analysed:
all original audio and video recordings;
all logs of handling and storage of the coins;
all correspondence between police, CPS, and journalists;
all payments to intermediaries, publicists, or investigators;
all material relating to prior judicial criticism of Mahmood;
Royal Mint records and any forensic reports.
D. Investigate plea advice and transcript
If possible, obtain:
counsel’s advice at the time;
conference notes;
plea hearing transcript;
any indication of what was known and when;
whether the prosecution disclosed or withheld relevant matters before the plea was entered.
E. If appropriate, seek to have the conviction quashed
If the fresh material is strong enough, the court should quash the conviction as unsafe under Criminal Appeal Act 1968 s 2(1).
9. Suggested framing for the application
A strong submission would say:
The conviction is unsafe because it rested on a prosecution narrative materially infected by undisclosed covert journalism, possible inducement/entrapment, unreliable and incomplete evidential handling, and significant nondisclosure affecting the decision to plead guilty. Viewed cumulatively, the new material demonstrates a real possibility that the conviction would not be upheld and a substantial basis upon which the Court of Appeal could find the conviction unsafe.
10. Conclusion
On the facts you describe, there are arguable and potentially substantial safety grounds. The strongest themes are:
state-or-state-adjacent inducement and manipulation;
material nondisclosure affecting plea and trial strategy;
credibility problems with the principal covert actor;
chain-of-custody and forensic inconsistencies;
a plea entered without full knowledge of the true case.
Under Criminal Appeal Act 1968 s 2, the decisive question is whether the conviction is unsafe. If the new material is properly assembled and authenticated, it may provide a credible basis to argue that the convictions should be quashed.
References
1.
Evidence on Criminal Cases Review Commission
UK Parliament Committee · Written Evidence · 2022
2.
UK Parliament · c. 19 · 1968
3.
CCRC launches library of every referral made since 1997
Criminal Cases Review Commission · News Release · 2023
4.
House of Lords · [2001] UKHL 53 · 2001
5.
EWCA Crim · [2013] EWCA Crim 85 · 2013
VARIOUS LEGAL DOCUMENTS & EVIDENCE CAN BE SEEN AT
https://fakesheikhexposed.wordpress.com/2026/02/09/rupert-murdochs-phone-hacking-serial-liar-fake-sheikh-mazher-mahmood-exposed/
The first draft (it’s been updated & expanded since) of Reasons My Convictions Are Unsafe
https://itvthehackphonehacking.wordpress.com/2025/09/25/itv-the-hack-unsafe-criminal-convictions-caused-by-rupert-murdochs-phone-hacking-fake-sheikh-mazher-mahmood/
Jonathan Royle: The Hypnotist Who Took on Rupert Murdoch’s Fake Sheikh — and Won’t Stop Fighting for Justice
OTHER LINKS THAT JOURNALISTS WILL LIKELY FIND OF USE & INTEREST
2015 – Hypnotist To Appeal Fake Sheikh Convictions
2016 – Hypnotist Jailed after Fake Sheikh Sting is now appealing against his conviction for forgery
Rupert Murdoch’s Fake Sheikh Tainted Evidence
https://paddyfrench.substack.com/p/rupert-murdochs-fake-sheik-tainted
Open Letter To The Police, Crown Prosecution Service & Government Officials
Royle’s History as a Media Prankster & TV Show Hoaxer
https://www.magicalguru.com/media-prankster-tv-show-hoaxer-2/
Sheikhed, Blagged & Trolled Key Note Speaker
https://www.magicalguru.com/sheikhed-blagged-trolled-keynote-speaker/
Phone Hacking, Media Abuse & The Daniel Morgan Murder
https://www.magicalguru.com/phone-hacking-media-abuse-the-daniel-morgan-murder/
ROYLE’S TWO ENCYLOPEDIC BOOKS EXPOSING FAKE SHEIKH ARE HERE
LINKS TO OTHER EVIDENCE & FACTS PROVING CONVICTIONS UNSAFE
https://fakesheikhexposed.wordpress.com/2026/02/09/rupert-murdochs-phone-hacking-serial-liar-fake-sheikh-mazher-mahmood-exposed/
300+ VIDEOS EXPOSING THE FAKE SHEIKH’S DISHONESTY IN DETAIL
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLDhI8Pk4O_4A7Yu7gFaba-8J4yWXOsWLA
MY MAIN OFFICIAL BLOG PAGE EXPOSING FAKE SHEIKH MAZHER MAHMOOD & GIVING EVIDENCE OF WHY MY CONVICTIONS ARE UNSAFE
2021 Perfected Grounds of Appeal for Alex Smith’s aka Celebrity Hypnotist Jonathan Royle’s UNSAFE Fake Sheikh Mazher Mahmood Related Criminal Convictions
Alex Smith v News Group Newspapers NGN – Civil Litigation in the Mobile Telephone Voicemail Interception Litigation (“MTVIL”) filed on 30th September 2022 at the Royal Courts of Justice in London, England
https://coursea013b675e4.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/alex-smith-v-ngn-claimant-specific-particulars-of-claim-2022.pdfRe-Amended Generic Particulars of Concealment & Destruction Upon Which Myself, Prince Harry Duke of Sussex & other Claimants relied on against NGN in Tranche 4 of the MTVIL = Mobile Telephone Voicemail Interception Litigation against News Group Newspapers
FULL BACKGROUND INFORMATION IS LOCATED AT THIS WEB LINK
https://unsafeconvictions.wordpress.com/
AND EVEN MORE SHOCKING EVIDENCE IS AVAILABLE FROM
Shocking NEW Evidence uncovers Miscarriages of Justice with many Wrongly Jailed Due to the Lies & Illegal Actions of Rupert Murdoch’s Disgraced Fake Sheikh Mazher Mahmood
EVIDENCE THE FAKE SHEIKH DRUGGED HIS VICTIMS & USED PHONE HACKING
Royle’s History as a Media Prankster & TV Show Hoaxer
https://www.magicalguru.com/media-prankster-tv-show-hoaxer-2/
Sheikhed, Blagged & Trolled Key Note Speaker
https://www.magicalguru.com/sheikhed-blagged-trolled-keynote-speaker/
Phone Hacking, Media Abuse & The Daniel Morgan Murder
https://www.magicalguru.com/phone-hacking-media-abuse-the-daniel-morgan-murder/
