Ikram & Anor, R v [2008] EWCA Crim 586 (19 March 2008)

Ikram & Anor, R v [2008] EWCA Crim 586 (19 March 2008)

The convictions were safe because the jury was accurately directed on the law, the refusal to allow Parveen to be recalled was a proper exercise of discretion, and the evidence supported the verdicts. The sentences were not manifestly excessive or wrong in principle given the gravity of the offence and the circumstances.

Citation
[2008] EWCA Crim 586
Parties
Prosecution: R; Appellant/defendant: Abid Ikram; Appellant/defendant: Sumaira Parveen
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 March 2008
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence From Southwark Crown Court
Outcome
Appeals against conviction and sentence dismissed
Legal Topics
Causing or Allowing the Death of a Child, Section 5 Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004, Appeal Against Conviction, Appeal Against Sentence, Jury Directions, Procedural Fairness
Criminal Law Child Protection Causing or Allowing the Death of a Child Section 5 Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 Appeal Against Conviction Appeal Against Sentence Jury Directions Procedural Fairness

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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

R

Prosecution

Abid Ikram

Appellant/defendant

Sumaira Parveen

Appellant/defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence From Southwark Crown Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the convictions for causing or allowing the death of a child under section 5 of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 were safe
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge erred in refusing to allow Parveen to be recalled to give further evidence
  3. 3 Whether the jury was properly directed on the law and facts

Ratio Decidendi

The convictions were safe because the jury was accurately directed on the law, the refusal to allow Parveen to be recalled was a proper exercise of discretion, and the evidence supported the verdicts. The sentences were not manifestly excessive or wrong in principle given the gravity of the offence and the circumstances.

Court Disposition

Appeals against conviction and sentence dismissed

Orders

  • Convictions upheld for both appellants under section 5 of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004
  • Sentences of 9 years' imprisonment for each appellant confirmed