ARU & Ors, R. v [2024] EWCA Crim 1101 (11 October 2024)

There was insufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to infer an agreement between the respondents and the opposing group to stab and be stabbed at, as required for joint enterprise liability for murder or attempted murder. The trial judge's ruling of no case to answer was reasonably open to him and correct in law.

Citation: [2024] EWCA Crim 1101
Parties: Appellant: REX; First Respondent: ARU; Second Respondent: AOC; Third Respondent: BHL
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 11 October 2024
Procedural Posture: Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Ruling of No Case to Answer at Close of Prosecution Case
Outcome: appeal dismissed
Legal Topics: Joint Enterprise, Murder, Attempted Murder, No Case to Answer, Agreement to Use Violence, Liability for Group Violence, Application of Gnango Principles

Criminal Law Joint Enterprise Murder Attempted Murder No Case to Answer Agreement to Use Violence Liability for Group Violence Application of Gnango Principles

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 11 Party arguments 2

Parties

REX

Appellant

ARU

First Respondent

AOC

Second Respondent

BHL

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Ruling of No Case to Answer at Close of Prosecution Case

Legal Issues

1 Whether the evidence supported an inference of an agreement to stab and be stabbed at, sufficient for joint enterprise liability for murder and attempted murder
2 Whether the trial judge erred in ruling there was no case to answer for the respondents on counts of murder and attempted murder

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

Ruling of no case to answer for ARU, AOC, and BHL on counts 1 to 4 confirmed
Acquittal of ARU, AOC, and BHL on counts 1 to 4 ordered pursuant to section 61(7) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003