Aslam v R.

Aslam v R.

The trial judge was entitled to admit Uddin's evidence and treat him as a hostile witness; the directions to the jury were sufficient to address any prejudice; the judge's refusal to discharge the jury was reasonable; the new evidence did not undermine the conviction; and the minimum term was reduced to 18 years to reflect proportionality with co-defendants.

Parties
Appellant: Imran Aslam; Respondent: The Crown
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 December 2011
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeal against conviction dismissed; appeal against sentence allowed in part
Legal Topics
Murder, Admissibility of Evidence, Hostile Witnesses, Jury Directions, Appeal Procedure, Sentencing

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Imran Aslam

Appellant

The Crown

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

  1. 1 Whether the evidence of Zak Uddin was inadmissible or unreliable
  2. 2 Whether the judge erred in treating Uddin as a hostile witness
  3. 3 Whether the judge's directions to the jury regarding Uddin's evidence were adequate

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge was entitled to admit Uddin's evidence and treat him as a hostile witness; the directions to the jury were sufficient to address any prejudice; the judge's refusal to discharge the jury was reasonable; the new evidence did not undermine the conviction; and the minimum term was reduced to 18 years to reflect proportionality with co-defendants.

Court Disposition

Appeal against conviction dismissed; appeal against sentence allowed in part

Orders

  • Conviction upheld
  • Minimum term reduced from 20 years to 18 years