Rahman & Ors v R.

Rahman & Ors v R.

The trial judge's directions on joint enterprise and the 'fundamentally different' test were not erroneous; the jury was properly instructed to consider whether the fatal act was within the scope of the common purpose and whether each appellant foresaw or intended the use of lethal violence. The evidence was sufficient for the jury to reach its verdicts, and no material misdirection occurred.

Parties
Appellant: Islamur Rahman; Appellant: Kamer Akram; Appellant: Anjum Nisa Amin; Appellant: Liaquat Ali; Respondent: The Crown
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 February 2007
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Joint Enterprise, Homicide, Murder, Secondary Liability, Fundamentally Different Test, Jury Directions
Criminal Law Joint Enterprise Homicide Murder Secondary Liability Fundamentally Different Test Jury Directions

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Islamur Rahman

Appellant

Kamer Akram

Appellant

Anjum Nisa Amin

Appellant

Liaquat Ali

Appellant

The Crown

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge misdirected the jury on the 'fundamentally different' test for joint enterprise murder liability.
  2. 2 Whether the actions of the knifeman were outside the scope of the common purpose shared by the appellants.
  3. 3 Whether there was sufficient evidence for the jury to conclude that certain appellants foresaw or anticipated the use of a knife.

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge's directions on joint enterprise and the 'fundamentally different' test were not erroneous; the jury was properly instructed to consider whether the fatal act was within the scope of the common purpose and whether each appellant foresaw or intended the use of lethal violence. The evidence was sufficient for the jury to reach its verdicts, and no material misdirection occurred.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Leave to appeal refused on all grounds.
  • Applications for leave to appeal sentence referred for later hearing.