ARU & Ors, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

On 29 September 2023, a violent incident involving young males occurred within a residential area of a large town, captured on CCTV. Four young males were charged with murder, manslaughter, attempted murder, and violent disorder. The case focused on three defendants (referred to as ARU, AOC, and BHL), with the fourth defendant (TC) facing separate charges. The defendants were accused of involvement in the murder of Ashraf Habimana and attempted murder of ARU, alongside alternative charges.

The prosecution presented a circumstantial case relying heavily on CCTV footage, mobile phone data, and messaging. The defendants had pleaded guilty to possessing knives earlier that day. The prosecution alleged a prearranged or spontaneous knife fight at a public house car park, resulting in the fatal stabbing of Habimana and the attempted murder of ARU.

After the prosecution case, submissions of no case to answer were made for counts concerning the three defendants ARU, AOC, and BHL, which the trial judge accepted, while rejecting the submission for TC. The prosecution sought to appeal the no case ruling, which was granted leave. The trial of TC continued separately, and the jury was discharged in respect of the other three defendants. The Court of Appeal ultimately dismissed the prosecution’s appeal and ordered acquittal of ARU, AOC, and BHL on the relevant counts.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the trial judge erred in ruling that the defendants ARU, AOC, and BHL had no case to answer on the charges of murder, manslaughter, attempted murder, and grievous bodily harm with intent.
2. Whether the evidence was sufficient for a reasonable jury properly directed to infer the existence of an agreement—either prearranged or spontaneous—between the defendants and others to stab and be stabbed, thus justifying liability for murder or attempted murder.
3. The applicability and scope of the legal principles established in Gnango and related case law concerning joint enterprise and reciprocal agreements to engage in violent conduct.
4. The correct test for granting leave to appeal against a no case to answer ruling under the Criminal Justice Act 2003.

Arguments of the Parties

Prosecution's Arguments

• There was an inferred prior hostility between the defendants and Athif’s group, triggered by a fist fight between Athif and BHL.
• The defendants circulated a video of Athif with a bloody mouth accompanied by threats, indicating a provocation and intent to escalate violence.
• The messaging between AOC and individuals associated with Athif showed that both groups were deliberately seeking confrontation, armed with knives.
• The defendants’ movements before arriving at the car park demonstrated they were looking for Athif to fight.
• The defendants’ conduct at the car park, including BHL chasing TC with a knife and ARU’s apparent attempt to draw a knife, evidenced readiness and willingness to engage in a reciprocal knife fight.
• The trial judge’s analysis was incomplete and failed to adequately consider the messaging and CCTV evidence, leading to an erroneous no case to answer ruling.

Defendants' Arguments

• The evidence did not support the existence of either a prearranged or spontaneous agreement to stab and be stabbed.
• The fist fight between Athif and BHL was an isolated incident with no evidence of gang affiliation or ongoing hostility.
• The messaging was provocative but did not establish awareness of mutual armament or agreement to engage in a knife fight.
• The defendants’ reactions to the events at the car park, including running away when confronted, contradicted the prosecution’s claim of a reciprocal agreement.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Gnango [2011] UKSC 59	Joint enterprise liability based on a common intention to shoot and be shot at; distinction between a duel (agreement) and a mere fight (no agreement).	Used to establish the necessity of a reciprocal agreement for liability; court emphasized the rarity and unusual factual background required for such liability.
R v Jogee [2016] 1 Cr App R 31	Clarification of accessorial liability principles, overruling parasitic accessory liability.	Referenced to reject the parasitic accessorial liability reasoning in Gnango and affirm the need for common intention.
R v Seed and others [2024] EWCA Crim 650	Reciprocal nature of an agreement to engage in mutual violence (e.g., shoot out) and the requirement for a shared common purpose.	Applied by the trial judge to assess the presence or absence of such an agreement in the present case.
Morgan [2021] EWCA Crim 895	Prosecution appeal involving firearms; clarified that the issue is whether an agreement existed, not whether the act was part of it.	Distinguished as involving firearms and of limited relevance; reinforced the focus on whether an agreement existed.
Riley and Robinson [2018] EWCA Crim 1000	Application of joint enterprise principles to consensual knife fights analogous to duels; evidential basis for agreement.	Distinguished as involving a consensual knife fight with clear evidence of agreement, unlike the present case.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court began by considering the legal framework established in Gnango and subsequent cases, emphasizing that criminal liability for violent acts involving multiple participants requires a reciprocal agreement to engage in the violence, either prearranged or spontaneously formed. The court highlighted the rarity of such cases and the necessity of clear evidence of a shared common purpose.

The trial judge’s ruling was scrutinized to determine whether it was reasonably open to him to conclude that no reasonable jury could convict the defendants. The prosecution’s circumstantial evidence was evaluated, including CCTV footage, mobile phone messaging, and the conduct of the defendants and others.

The court found that the evidence did not demonstrate an agreement—either explicit or inferred—to stab and be stabbed. The absence of gang affiliation, lack of prior hostility, and the defendants’ conduct (notably their running away rather than engaging in a knife fight) undermined the prosecution’s case. The messaging was provocative but did not establish knowledge of mutual armament or an agreement to fight with knives.

The court also rejected the prosecution’s interpretation of the CCTV footage regarding ARU’s actions as unsupported by the evidence. The judge’s application of the law was correct, and his evaluative exercise was within the bounds of reasonableness.

Consequently, the court concluded that the trial judge’s no case to answer ruling was properly made and that the prosecution’s appeal lacked merit.

Holding and Implications

The Court of Appeal DISMISSED the prosecution’s appeal against the trial judge’s ruling of no case to answer for the defendants ARU, AOC, and BHL on counts of murder, manslaughter, attempted murder, and grievous bodily harm with intent.

The defendants were ordered acquitted on these counts pursuant to the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The decision confirms the stringent evidential requirements for establishing liability based on reciprocal agreements to engage in violence. The court emphasized that extending the principles of Gnango to cases lacking clear evidence of such agreements should be avoided, thereby limiting the scope of joint enterprise liability in cases of spontaneous or uncoordinated violence.

No new precedent was set beyond affirming the correct application of existing legal principles to the facts of this case.