Writtle v Director of Public Prosecutions

Writtle v Director of Public Prosecutions

There was a clear prima facie case that the appellants shared a common enterprise to attack and injure the victims, and the use of sharp weapons was within the contemplation of the group. The judge's directions on common enterprise and section 34 were adequate and did not cause unfairness. The sentences imposed were...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Aziz Miah; Applicant: Vabeesan Shivarajah; Appellant: Kirush Nanthakumar; Appellant: Asif Kumbay; Respondent: The Crown
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 January 2009
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
appeals dismissed
Legal Topics
Murder, Common Enterprise, Joint Enterprise, Appeal Against Conviction, Appeal Against Sentence, Adverse Inference, Section 34 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994
Criminal Law Murder Common Enterprise Joint Enterprise Appeal Against Conviction Appeal Against Sentence Adverse Inference Section 34 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994

Source-derived case record

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

Parties

Aziz Miah

Appellant

Vabeesan Shivarajah

Applicant

Kirush Nanthakumar

Appellant

Asif Kumbay

Appellant

The Crown

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in failing to withdraw murder and manslaughter charges from the jury
  2. 2 Whether the directions on common enterprise were defective
  3. 3 Whether the section 34 direction regarding adverse inference from silence was properly given

Ratio Decidendi

There was a clear prima facie case that the appellants shared a common enterprise to attack and injure the victims, and the use of sharp weapons was within the contemplation of the group. The judge's directions on common enterprise and section 34 were adequate and did not cause unfairness. The sentences imposed were not wrong in principle or manifestly excessive given the planned and aggravated nature of the violence.

Court Disposition

appeals dismissed

Orders

  • Appeals against conviction dismissed
  • Appeals against sentence dismissed