Apabhai, R. v [2011] EWCA Crim 917 (18 March 2011)

Apabhai, R. v [2011] EWCA Crim 917 (18 March 2011)

The exclusion of the blackmail evidence was an error, as it was admissible under section 98(b) or 101(1)(e) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, but its omission did not render the conviction unsafe due to overwhelming circumstantial evidence. The refusal to admit the arson convictions was correct, as they were too remote and lacked probative value. The sentences imposed were not manifestly excessive or wrong in principle, and the judge was entitled to assess the roles and culpability of each defendant independently.

Citation
[2011] EWCA Crim 917
Parties
Prosecution: Regina; Appellant/defendant: Hashib Apabhai; Appellant/defendant: Esa Apabhai; Appellant/defendant: Adam Amani
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 March 2011
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeals dismissed
Legal Topics
Bad Character Evidence, Conspiracy to Cheat the Public Revenue, Sentencing, Admissibility of Evidence, Joint Enterprise, Appeal Procedure
Criminal Law Bad Character Evidence Conspiracy to Cheat the Public Revenue Sentencing Admissibility of Evidence Joint Enterprise Appeal Procedure

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Prosecution

Hashib Apabhai

Appellant/defendant

Esa Apabhai

Appellant/defendant

Adam Amani

Appellant/defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in refusing to admit evidence of alleged blackmail by a co-defendant (Amani) against the appellant (Hashib Apabhai)
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge erred in refusing to admit evidence of co-defendant's (Amani's) previous arson convictions
  3. 3 Whether the sentences imposed were manifestly excessive or wrong in principle

Ratio Decidendi

The exclusion of the blackmail evidence was an error, as it was admissible under section 98(b) or 101(1)(e) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, but its omission did not render the conviction unsafe due to overwhelming circumstantial evidence. The refusal to admit the arson convictions was correct, as they were too remote and lacked probative value. The sentences imposed were not manifestly excessive or wrong in principle, and the judge was entitled to assess the roles and culpability of each defendant independently.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed

Orders

  • Conviction of Hashib Apabhai upheld
  • Sentences of Esa Apabhai and Adam Amani upheld