REGINA v Khan, England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division), Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Attorney(S)

Mr C Blaxland QC & Mr H Zahir appeared on behalf of the Appellants Khan, Jabbar, Maroof and Rashid
Mr M McDonald appeared on behalf of the Appellant Saraj

Judges

LADY JUSTICE HALLETT DBE
MR JUSTICE FOSKETT
MR JUSTICE OUSELEY

See more information ...

Click here to read the full judgment

REGINA v. Khan

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The case involves five appellants convicted by a jury at Stafford Crown Court on 29th November 2011 of conspiracy to murder. The appellants were sentenced in December 2011, with three adults receiving 24 years' imprisonment and two younger men sentenced to 20 years' detention in a young offender institution. The victim had received threats linked to an earlier assault on his sons, who had testified against their attackers. On 4th June 2010, the victim was shot in the lower leg by two masked men using a sawn-off shotgun from a stolen car with false number plates. The victim suffered severe injuries requiring multiple surgeries. Evidence presented included CCTV, cell site analysis, fingerprints, and documents relating to the planning and execution of the attack, which was alleged to have been carefully planned over several days. The prosecution argued the conspiracy was to kill, while the defence contended it was only to cause grievous bodily harm or that the appellants were not involved at all. The trial judge rejected a no case submission and left the matter to the jury, who convicted the appellants.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the evidence was sufficient to justify a conviction for conspiracy to murder as opposed to conspiracy to cause grievous bodily harm.
Whether the trial judge erred in rejecting the submission of no case to answer on the conspiracy to murder charge.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellants' Arguments

The evidence was circumstantial and did not exclude the realistic possibility that the conspiracy was only to cause grievous bodily harm rather than to kill.
The jury should only draw an adverse inference of guilt if no other realistic inference consistent with innocence existed.
The shooting aimed at the victim's leg, not vital areas, suggesting an intention to injure rather than kill.
The previous threats to kill were not proven to have been made by the appellants and did not establish intent or agreement to kill.
The plan to kill was improbable given the timing and manner of the attack.
The trial judge should have upheld the no case submission and withdrawn the conspiracy to murder charge from the jury.

Prosecution's Arguments

The evidence showed a well-planned conspiracy to kill, including preparation, use of a firearm, and attempts to destroy evidence.
Although the gunman may have changed his mind at the last moment, the overall plan was to kill.
The threats to kill the victim linked to the trial of the victim's sons provided a clear motive for the conspiracy to murder.
The trial judge correctly applied the test for a no case submission and properly left the issue to the jury.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Galbraith [1981] 1 WLR 1039	Test for submission of no case: whether a reasonable jury properly directed could convict.	The court affirmed the application of this classic test in determining whether the case should go to the jury.
R v Goddard & Fallick [2012] EWCA Crim 1756	Clarification of the no case test when adverse inferences are drawn from circumstantial evidence.	The court relied on this authority to emphasize that a reasonable jury must be able to draw an adverse inference on one possible view of the evidence for the case to proceed.
R v Anthony Darnley [2012] EWCA Crim 1148	Focus on whether there is evidence on which a reasonable jury could infer guilt, an easier test than excluding all other inferences.	The court preferred this approach, focusing on whether reasonable juries could convict rather than requiring unanimity on all reasonable views.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court carefully considered the submission of no case to answer concerning the conspiracy to murder charge. It applied the established Galbraith test, as refined in subsequent case law, focusing on whether a reasonable jury, properly directed, could convict based on the evidence taken at its highest. The court acknowledged the circumstantial nature of the evidence and the possibility that the gunman may have changed his mind at the last moment. However, it emphasized the extensive planning, use of a lethal weapon, attempts to destroy evidence, and the context of threats to kill linked to the victim's family as strong indicia of a conspiracy to murder rather than merely to cause grievous bodily harm. The court rejected the appellants' argument that the shooting of the victim's leg indicated an intention only to injure, noting that the jury was entitled to consider the possibility of a last-minute change of intent by the gunman. The court concluded that the trial judge had correctly left the question to the jury and that withdrawing the conspiracy to murder charge would have usurped the jury's role.

Holding and Implications

The appeals of all five appellants were DISMISSED.

The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the conspiracy to murder charge and that the trial judge correctly refused to withdraw the charge from the jury. The direct effect is the affirmation of the appellants' convictions and sentences. The decision does not establish new legal precedent but reaffirms the proper application of the no case submission test in cases involving circumstantial evidence and conspiracy charges.