R v BHV

R v BHV

The judge erred in ruling there was no case to answer for murder; the evidence could allow a properly directed jury to find that BHV had a conditional intent to cause serious harm to anyone who resisted the joint enterprise, not just the named target. The matter should be left to the jury.

Parties
Applicant: Rex; Respondent: BHV
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 December 2022
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Prosecution Appeal Against Terminating Ruling (no Case to Answer on Murder)
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Joint Enterprise, Murder, Manslaughter, Conditional Intent, Accessory Liability, Offensive Weapons
Criminal Law Joint Enterprise Murder Manslaughter Conditional Intent Accessory Liability Offensive Weapons

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 2 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rex

Applicant

BHV

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Prosecution Appeal Against Terminating Ruling (no Case to Answer on Murder)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in ruling there was no case to answer for murder against BHV under joint enterprise principles
  2. 2 Whether the evidence could support a finding of conditional intent to cause serious harm to persons other than the intended target

Ratio Decidendi

The judge erred in ruling there was no case to answer for murder; the evidence could allow a properly directed jury to find that BHV had a conditional intent to cause serious harm to anyone who resisted the joint enterprise, not just the named target. The matter should be left to the jury.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • Proceedings in the Crown Court to be resumed on Count 1 (murder) and continued in relation to Count 4 (offensive weapon) against BHV.