Mohammed, R v

Mohammed, R v

The jury was not properly directed to consider whether each appellant had a reasonable excuse for failing to produce the false document used to gain entry, as required by section 2(4)(c); section 2(4)(e) does not provide a defence to appellants who entered with false documents and subsequently disposed of them.

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Farida Said Mohammed; Appellant: Abdullah Mohamed Osman; Respondent: R (Crown)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 October 2007
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
appeals allowed
Legal Topics
Asylum Offences, Failure to Produce Immigration Documents, Statutory Defences, Interpretation of Asylum and Immigration (treatment of Claimants, Etc) Act 2004
Criminal Law Immigration Law Asylum Offences Failure to Produce Immigration Documents Statutory Defences Interpretation of Asylum and Immigration (treatment of Claimants, Etc) Act 2004

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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Farida Said Mohammed

Appellant

Abdullah Mohamed Osman

Appellant

R (Crown)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether section 2(4)(c) and 2(4)(e) of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc) Act 2004 provide a defence to the offence of failing to produce an immigration document at an asylum interview
  2. 2 Whether the appellants had a reasonable excuse for not producing genuine immigration documents
  3. 3 Whether entry with false documents and subsequent disposal provides a statutory defence

Ratio Decidendi

The jury was not properly directed to consider whether each appellant had a reasonable excuse for failing to produce the false document used to gain entry, as required by section 2(4)(c); section 2(4)(e) does not provide a defence to appellants who entered with false documents and subsequently disposed of them.

Court Disposition

appeals allowed

Orders

  • convictions quashed
  • no order for retrial