R v Al Batat (No 18)

In the case of R v Al Batat (No 18), the appellant was convicted of murder in the first degree and of conspiracy to murder. The appellant, along with two others, was found to be part of a joint criminal enterprise that resulted in the death of an individual. The evidence against the appellant included the testimony of a co-accused who identified the appellant as the shooter. The appellant argued that the evidence should not have been admitted as it was hearsay and not admissible under the co-conspirators rule. The court was required to determine whether the hearsay evidence was admissible and whether it could be used to establish the appellant's direct liability as the shooter.

The legal issues before the court were whether the hearsay evidence was admissible under the co-conspirators rule and whether it could be used to establish the appellant's direct liability as the shooter. The court held that the evidence was admissible under the co-conspirators rule as it was relevant to prove the existence, nature, and scope of the alleged criminal enterprise. However, the court held that the evidence could not be used to establish the appellant's direct liability as the shooter as it was not admissible to prove that the appellant was the person who pulled the trigger.

The court noted that the co-accused had made a timely and well-articulated objection to the evidence being used to prove the appellant's direct liability as the shooter. The court held that the evidence was admissible to prove the existence, nature, and scope of the alleged criminal enterprise, but not to prove the appellant's direct liability as the shooter. The court held that the evidence was merely a narrative of past events and not in furtherance of the common purpose. The court held that the appellant was liable on two legal bases: joint criminal enterprise and principle in the first degree.

The court did not make any final orders as the case was remitted to the Court of Appeal for further consideration. The court held that the evidence was admissible to prove the existence, nature, and scope of the alleged criminal enterprise, but not to prove the appellant's direct liability as the shooter. The court held that the evidence was merely a narrative of past events and not in furtherance of the common purpose. The court held that the appellant was liable on two legal bases: joint criminal enterprise and principle in the first degree.