Regina v Anwar (Umar) and others [2016] EWCA Crim 551
‘The victim was telephoned and offered a supply of cannabis, as a result of which he drove to the appointed place where he got into a silver car, joining the three occupants, to complete the purchase. The front passenger pointed a shotgun at his face while the driver brandished a knife. As the victim attempted to escape two men exited a white van nearby and attempted to take his car. The man with the shotgun fired two shots but the victim escaped. Six defendants stood trial on charges of attempted murder, conspiracy to commit robbery and possession of a firearm with intent to commit robbery. The Crown argued that this was a well-planned criminal enterprise as shown on the CCTV footage and by the frequent mobile phone calls between the defendants which showed that all the robbers had the necessary knowledge that a firearm was to be carried with the intention that it should be used during the course of the robbery with the required, if conditional, intention to kill. The trial judge ruled that, although there was a case for all defendants to answer in respect of the count of conspiracy to rob, there was no case in relation to attempted murder and possession of a firearm with intent because there was no evidence to establish a prima facie case as to (a) any particular defendant being in the silver car; (b) any particular defendant holding the shotgun either in the silver car or when the shots were fired; or (c) crucially, any particular defendant being aware, by the time of travelling to the scene, that the shotgun was loaded, or that he was intending that it should be used if necessary specifically to kill. The Crown appealed against the judge’s ruling, pursuant to the provisions of section 58 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.’
WLR Daily, 1st July 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
