Hafiz & Orsl v R

Hafiz & Orsl v R

There was no evidence of bad faith or abuse of process by the prosecution or police; the judge's directions to the jury were sufficiently clear and robust to mitigate any prejudice arising from the evidence of a co-accused or the joint trial; the prosecution was entitled to call Henderson as a witness despite his credibility issues; and the verdicts in Hafiz's and Afzal's cases were safe. However, the inconsistent verdicts in Rafiq's case rendered his conviction unsafe and his conviction for murder was quashed.

Parties
1st Appellant: Mohammed Idris Hafiz; 2nd Appellant: Arfan Rafiq; 3rd Appellant: Akmal Ali Afzal; Respondent: Regina
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 January 2012
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Applications for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Applications for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence refused for Hafiz and Afzal; Rafiq's conviction for murder quashed; directions for possible retrial.
Legal Topics
Joint Enterprise, Murder, Possession of Firearm, Assisting an Offender, Abuse of Process, Disclosure, Jury Directions, Inconsistent Verdicts
Criminal Law Joint Enterprise Murder Possession of Firearm Assisting an Offender Abuse of Process Disclosure Jury Directions +1 more

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

Parties

Mohammed Idris Hafiz

1st Appellant

Arfan Rafiq

2nd Appellant

Akmal Ali Afzal

3rd Appellant

Regina

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Applications for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in refusing a stay for abuse of process or exclusion of evidence under section 78 PACE
  2. 2 Whether the judge's directions to the jury were adequate to mitigate prejudice from co-accused evidence and joint trial
  3. 3 Whether the verdicts returned by the jury were inconsistent and rendered the convictions unsafe

Ratio Decidendi

There was no evidence of bad faith or abuse of process by the prosecution or police; the judge's directions to the jury were sufficiently clear and robust to mitigate any prejudice arising from the evidence of a co-accused or the joint trial; the prosecution was entitled to call Henderson as a witness despite his credibility issues; and the verdicts in Hafiz's and Afzal's cases were safe. However, the inconsistent verdicts in Rafiq's case rendered his conviction unsafe and his conviction for murder was quashed.

Court Disposition

Applications for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence refused for Hafiz and Afzal; Rafiq's conviction for murder quashed; directions for possible retrial.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal against conviction and sentence refused for Hafiz and Afzal.
  • Rafiq's conviction for murder quashed; order to take effect after 14 days unless retrial application is made.