R v Jason Russo & Ors

R v Jason Russo & Ors

Conspiracy to do an act capable of encouraging or assisting the commission of one or more offences is an offence known to law; supplying Encrochat devices assisted the substantive offence of supplying drugs; sufficient evidence existed for the jury to infer knowledge; judge's questioning did not render the trial unfair and was cured by direction.

Parties
Respondent: Rex; First Appellant: Jason Russo; Second Appellant: Jamil Ahmed; Third Appellant: Mohammed Miah
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 February 2025
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
Appeals dismissed; convictions upheld.
Legal Topics
Statutory Conspiracy, Encouraging or Assisting Offences, Serious Crime Act 2007, Criminal Law Act 1977, Mens Rea, Inchoate Offences
Criminal Law Statutory Conspiracy Encouraging or Assisting Offences Serious Crime Act 2007 Criminal Law Act 1977 Mens Rea Inchoate Offences

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 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rex

Respondent

Jason Russo

First Appellant

Jamil Ahmed

Second Appellant

Mohammed Miah

Third Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether conspiracy to commit an offence under section 46 of the Serious Crime Act 2007 is known to law
  2. 2 Whether supplying Encrochat devices constitutes assisting the substantive offence of supplying drugs
  3. 3 Whether the evidence was sufficient to establish knowledge of criminal purpose

Ratio Decidendi

Conspiracy to do an act capable of encouraging or assisting the commission of one or more offences is an offence known to law; supplying Encrochat devices assisted the substantive offence of supplying drugs; sufficient evidence existed for the jury to infer knowledge; judge's questioning did not render the trial unfair and was cured by direction.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed; convictions upheld.