Khan, R. v [2018] EWCA Crim 2893 (13 November 2018)

Khan, R. v [2018] EWCA Crim 2893 (13 November 2018)

The trial judge's evidentiary rulings were correct and within her discretion; the expert evidence, bad character evidence, and co-accused evidence were properly admitted and did not render the trial unfair. The minimum sentencing provisions applied, no exceptional circumstances existed to depart from them, and the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] EWCA Crim 2893
Parties
Prosecution: Regina; Appellant: Mucktar Khan
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 November 2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Renewed Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence Before the Court of Appeal (criminal Division)
Outcome
Renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction refused; leave to appeal against sentence granted but appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Possession of Prohibited Firearm, Possession of Offensive Weapon, Failure to Comply With Section 49 Notice, Admissibility of Expert Evidence, Bad Character Evidence, Minimum Sentencing Provisions, Joint Possession, Gang Related Crime
Criminal Law Possession of Prohibited Firearm Possession of Offensive Weapon Failure to Comply With Section 49 Notice Admissibility of Expert Evidence Bad Character Evidence Minimum Sentencing Provisions Joint Possession +1 more

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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Prosecution

Mucktar Khan

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Renewed Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence Before the Court of Appeal (criminal Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in admitting expert evidence regarding gang membership
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge erred in admitting bad character evidence of previous convictions
  3. 3 Whether the trial judge erred in admitting prejudicial evidence admissible only against co-accused

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge's evidentiary rulings were correct and within her discretion; the expert evidence, bad character evidence, and co-accused evidence were properly admitted and did not render the trial unfair. The minimum sentencing provisions applied, no exceptional circumstances existed to depart from them, and the sentencing disparity was justified by the statutory regime distinguishing offenders above and below 18 years of age. There was no arguable ground to interfere with conviction or sentence.

Court Disposition

Renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction refused; leave to appeal against sentence granted but appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal against conviction refused
  • Leave to appeal against sentence granted