Legal Research
Cases
R v Rahman

R v Rahman

Case [2008] UKHL 45 2 July 2008

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

HOUSE OF LORDS SESSION 2007–08
[2008] UKHL 45

on appeal from: [2007]EWCA Crim 342

OPINIONS

OF THE LORDS OF APPEAL
FOR JUDGMENT IN THE CAUSE

R v Rahman and others (Appellants) (On Appeal from the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division))

Appellate Committee

Lord Bingham of Cornhill

Lord Scott of Foscote
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood
Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury

Counsel

Appellants: Respondents:

Michael Harrison QC Robert Smith QC

Yunus Valli Paul Greaney

(Instructed by Sharpe Pritchard ) (Instructed by Crown Prosecution Service)

Hearing date:

23 and 24 APRIL 2008

ON
WEDNESDAY 2 JULY 2008

HOUSE OF LORDS

OPINIONS OF THE LORDS OF APPEAL FOR JUDGMENT
IN THE CAUSE

R v Rahman and others (Appellants) (On Appeal from the Court of
Appeal (Criminal Division))
[2008] UKHL 45

LORD BINGHAM OF CORNHILL
My Lords,
1. On 4 March 2005 the four appellants were convicted in the Crown Court at Leeds before Wakerley J and a jury of murdering Tyrone Clarke on 22 April 2004. The indictment contained a second count, of violent disorder, on which no verdict was returned. It was not alleged or proved that any of the appellants had personally struck the fatal blow or blows and they were convicted as accessories or secondary parties to the joint enterprise which culminated in the death of the deceased. The Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal (Hooper LJ, Gibbs and Roderick Evans JJ) dismissed their appeals against conviction on 23 February 2007, for reasons given by Hooper LJ: [2007] EWCA Crim 342, [2007] 1 WLR 2191. Their appeals to the House raise a narrow but significant question on the direction to be given to the jury concerning the liability of an accessory on facts such as arose in the present case.
The facts
2. There was, it seems, a history of confrontation between the deceased and some of his friends on one side and a group of young Asians including two of the appellants on the other. In a chance encounter involving minor violence on 20 April 2004 some members of the latter group were worsted. There was talk of revenge, and on the afternoon of 22 April the deceased and some of his friends were sighted by the opposing group. A number of young Asians gathered. They were carrying a variety of weapons including baseball bats, a cricket bat, a scaffolding pole, a metal bar, a table leg and pieces of wood. Their numbers increased, and as they walked through the streets there were two groups, one of 10 to 12 with a group of about 5 to 7 shortly behind. The deceased and his friend armed themselves with pieces of wood taken from a fence and fighting broke out between the two groups. A further group of Asian men arrived and the deceased and his friend were pursued as they sought to escape through lanes and a ginnel (the Rock ginnel), until they reached a grassy area at the back of some houses…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v Rahman

Details

AGLC: R v Rahman [2008] UKHL 45
Case: [2008] UKHL 45
Decision Date: 2 July 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The House of Lords, in R v Rahman and others, considered the criminal liability of accessories to murder. The appellants were convicted of murdering a victim in a joint attack, though it was not alleged or proven that any of them had inflicted the fatal blows. The central issue was whether the appellants' liability depended on their knowledge of the primary offender's intention to kill. The House held that an accessory's liability hinges on their foresight of the potential for serious bodily harm, not the primary offender's undisclosed intention to kill. The Lords emphasised the principle that if an accessory participates in a joint enterprise with the foresight that serious harm might be inflicted, they are liable for murder if death results, regardless of whether they foresaw the specific lethal intent of the primary offender. This ruling aligns with the established law that an accessory's criminal liability is based on their participation with foresight of the potential for serious harm, rather than the exact nature of the primary offender's intent at the time of the killing. The House rejected the argument that an accessory should escape liability if the primary offender's intent to kill was unforeseen, as this would introduce unnecessary complexity and undermine the rationale of holding accessories accountable for the foreseeable consequences of their participation in a joint criminal enterprise. The Lords concluded that the trial judge's direction to the jury was correct, and the appeals were dismissed.

Orders