R v Luke Hibbert

R v Luke Hibbert

A reasonable jury could properly infer from the communications, sequencing, and context that the appellant participated in the planning of the murder with the relevant mens rea, and thus the judge did not err in rejecting the submission of no case to answer.

Parties
Prosecution: Rex; Appellant: Luke Hibbert
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 January 2026
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Murder, Secondary Liability, Drug Offences, Submission of No Case to Answer
Criminal Law Murder Secondary Liability Drug Offences Submission of No Case to Answer

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

Parties

Rex

Prosecution

Luke Hibbert

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in rejecting the submission of no case to answer for murder
  2. 2 Whether there was sufficient evidence for the appellant's participation in the planning and encouragement of murder

Ratio Decidendi

A reasonable jury could properly infer from the communications, sequencing, and context that the appellant participated in the planning of the murder with the relevant mens rea, and thus the judge did not err in rejecting the submission of no case to answer.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Conviction for murder upheld
  • No error found in judge's ruling on submission of no case to answer