Introduction

R v Sheikh & Ors [2025] EWCA Crim 38 is a landmark decision by the England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) that addresses the application of section 5 of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 (DVCVA). The case involves the appellants—Asgar Sheikh, Shabnam Sheikh, Khalid Sheikh, and Shagufa Sheikh—who were convicted on 18 December 2023 for causing or allowing a vulnerable adult, Ambreen Sheikh, to suffer serious physical harm. The conviction was challenged on grounds of statutory interpretation, particularly concerning the foreseeability of harm under section 5(1)(c) and (d) of the DVCVA.

Ambreen Sheikh, the victim, sustained serious physical harm leading to a persistent vegetative state. The appellants, who are members of the same household, were implicated in actions that were alleged to have created a significant risk of such harm. This commentary delves into the Court of Appeal's comprehensive analysis of the statutory provisions, the interpretation of foreseeability, and the implications of the judgment on future cases involving domestic abuse.

Summary of the Judgment

The appellants appealed against their convictions, arguing that the trial judge, Lambert J, had misinterpreted section 5 of the DVCVA. They contended that this misinterpretation led to improper jury directions regarding the foreseeability of harm and the specific circumstances under which their actions were deemed unlawful.

The Court of Appeal meticulously examined the statutory language of section 5, emphasizing the importance of the terms "the unlawful act" and "circumstances of the kind that D foresaw or ought to have foreseen." The court scrutinized the arguments presented by both the defense and prosecution, particularly focusing on whether the administration of glimepiride constituted an unlawful act foreseeable in the context of prior abusive behavior.

Ultimately, the Court of Appeal found that the trial judge had erred in her interpretation, particularly regarding the scope of foreseeability tied to the nature of the unlawful act. The appeals against conviction on counts 1, 2, 3, and 5 were thus allowed, leading to the overturning of the initial convictions.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment referenced several key precedents to frame the legal context:

• R v Khan (Uzma), Naureen and Hussain [2009] 1 Cr App R.28: This case was pivotal in discussing the interpretation of "circumstances of the kind" within the DVCVA, particularly regarding the type of unlawful act foreseeable by the defendants.
• Smith, Hogan and Ormerod's Criminal Law: Noted in its 17th edition, this text provides a comprehensive analysis of the statutory provisions, emphasizing caution against overly broad interpretations that could undermine statutory safeguards.

These precedents influenced the Court of Appeal's approach to statutory interpretation, ensuring that foreseeability was adequately constrained to prevent unjustly broad liability.

Legal Reasoning

Central to the Court's decision was the interpretation of section 5(1)(c) and (d) of the DVCVA. The appellants argued that the application of different unlawful acts (caustic burns versus administration of glimepiride) should limit the foreseeability of harm. They emphasized that the trial judge's interpretation did not adequately differentiate between these distinct acts, leading to an overextension of liability.

The Court of Appeal scrutinized the statutory language, particularly the use of the definite article "the" in "the unlawful act." The court rejected the notion that liability should be confined to the same category of unlawful acts, asserting that such an interpretation would pose significant definitional challenges and undermine the statutory framework's intent.

Instead, the court upheld the importance of contextual foreseeability, focusing on whether the circumstances surrounding the act were of a kind that the defendants ought to have foreseen could lead to serious harm. This nuanced interpretation ensures that secondary liability under the DVCVA remains justly applied without overreaching.

Impact

This judgment significantly clarifies the boundaries of secondary liability under section 5 of the DVCVA. By refining the criteria for foreseeability, the Court of Appeal ensures that liability is contingent upon a reasonable expectation of harm within similar contexts, rather than being tethered to the specific nature of the unlawful act. This prevents unjustly broad applications of the law and safeguards against potential misuse.

Future cases involving domestic abuse and secondary liability will likely reference this judgment to determine the appropriate scope of foreseeability. Legal practitioners must now carefully assess whether the circumstances of an unlawful act align with the foreseeability standards established herein.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Section 5 of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 (DVCVA)

Section 5 creates an offence where a person can be held liable for causing or allowing serious physical harm to a vulnerable adult within the same household, even if they did not directly commit the harmful act. This is known as secondary liability.

Foreseeability of Harm

Foreseeability refers to whether a reasonable person in the defendant's position would anticipate that their actions could lead to serious harm. In this context, it's about whether the circumstances surrounding an unlawful act were such that the defendant should have anticipated the risk of harm to the vulnerable person.

"Circumstances of the kind that D foresaw or ought to have foreseen"

This phrase requires that the defendant was aware or should have been aware that the situation could lead to serious harm. It doesn’t necessitate that they predicted the exact method of harm, but rather that the general risk was apparent given the context.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal's decision in R v Sheikh & Ors (2025) serves as a pivotal clarification of the standards of foreseeability under section 5 of the DVCVA. By maintaining a balance between protecting vulnerable individuals and preventing the overextension of liability, the judgment ensures that secondary liability is applied judiciously.

The emphasis on contextual foreseeability over the specific nature of the unlawful act underscores the nuanced approach necessary in domestic abuse cases. This ensures that while abusers are held accountable for creating risks of harm, the law does not unjustly expand liability beyond reasonable boundaries.

As legal practitioners navigate future cases involving the DVCVA, this judgment will serve as a cornerstone for interpreting statutory provisions related to domestic abuse and secondary liability. Its impact extends beyond the immediate parties involved, shaping the broader legal landscape to better protect vulnerable individuals within domestic settings.