GUILTY UK - Hashim Ijazuddin, 21, and Saqib Hussain, 20, car crash A46 Leicester 11 Feb 2022 *Murder Arrests*

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

bobbymkii said:
JMO - I think that might be a little bit harsh. It's a very difficult situation for all involved and a high speed car chase must be a very difficult environment to have a telephone conversation of any kind, let alone one where lives are on the line.

The operator is trying to either direct them to a police station or work out where they are so that they can send help. Saqib and Hashim are not from Leicester so probably not familiar with the area they are in, and are in a situation where it's very difficult to stay calm and provide the information the call handler needs to provide them with the assistance they needed at the time.
Click to expand...
Saqib, in the last moments of his life, rang 999 and told the operator he was being rammed off the road and the call handler said “ you’re not being rammed off the road”
Under no circumstances should they be saying that to anyone who has rang them in distress.
Unfortunately, that was one of the last things saqib heard before he died. The police, who he was begging to help him, were not taking his cries for help seriously.

S I've gone past Ratcliffe College and I'm getting rammed off the road...

O You're not getting rammed off the road...

S They're trying to hit the vehicle, they're hit into the side...

O And you've gone past Ratcliffe Road?

S Ratcliffe College, I just told you, I've gone past that now. Please. I just need help.

www.leicestermercury.co.uk

'I'm going to die' - transcript of TikTok 999 call

The jury in the TikTok trial has heard the disturbing recording numerous times
www.leicestermercury.co.uk www.leicestermercury.co.uk
 
Last edited:
I've been trying to find out about whether the 4 charged with murder could receive the same lengths of sentence, despite RJ being the one who actually struck the fatal blow. Interestingly, they could.


The parties to an offence​

Where two or more persons are involved in an offence, the parties to the offence may be principals (D1) or secondary parties (accessories ) (D2). Each offence will have at least one principal, although it is not always possible or necessary to identify the principal(s).

A principal is one who carries out the substantive offence i.e. performs or causes the actus reus of the offence with the required mens rea. If two or more persons do so, they are joint principals.

A secondary party is one who aids, abets, counsels or procures (commonly referred to as assists or encourages) D1 to commit the substantive offence, without being a principal offender. However, a secondary party can be prosecuted and punished as if he were a principal offender: s8 Accessories and Abettors Act 1861.

Secondary liability principles can be applied to most offences. The principles remain the same, whichever offence they are applied to. The principles are commonly used in offences of violence, theft, fraud and public order.

Secondary Liability: charging decisions on principals and accessories | The Crown Prosecution Service

www.cps.gov.uk www.cps.gov.uk
 
Further to the above, it seems that merely being present at the scene does not fulfil the requirements of joint enterprise, Had the manslaughter group protested in the cars about what was happening (which I think some allegedly did?) and then come clean to the police instead of participating in the cover up, they probably would have been found not guilty (IMO).

After the first trial collapsed, I can't believe none of them seized the opportunity to own up and tell the truth. Surely they would have realised the seriousness of the situation at this point and it seems crazy they continued trying to peddle the lies. They were out of prison on bail at the time, so I'm surprised none of them had friends/family encouraging them to tell the truth. Or perhaps they did and they disregarded the advice (again, just my opinion).
 
Clearly I have no life because I've just gone back over some of the trial evidence and the judge's summing up and found the below. Neither Sanaf Gulamastafa nor Raees Jamal are mentioned here - I wonder does this mean SG also has a previous conviction, or is it an oversight from the court reporter?

He went on to discuss previous convictions. Ansreen, Mahek, Ameer and Natasha all have no previous convictions. Rekan Karwan and Mohammed Patel both have driving convictions but the jury was ordered to consider them as having "good character" because the offences were not relevant to the crime they are accused of now.
 
Final comment by me for now! Some guidelines on unlawful act manslaughter sentencing. First the level of culpability needs to be determined. Maybe level C or D? JMO, I'm really not sure. Starting point for C is 6 years and D is 2 years but that is for a single fatality. So, perhaps looking at a range of 4 to 12 years if the judge is generous? Total guess!!!

Unlawful act manslaughter – Sentencing

www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk
 
Legal said:
Further to the above, it seems that merely being present at the scene does not fulfil the requirements of joint enterprise, Had the manslaughter group protested in the cars about what was happening (which I think some allegedly did?) and then come clean to the police instead of participating in the cover up, they probably would have been found not guilty (IMO).
Click to expand...

Yes, there's recent very significant Supreme Court case law on this in R v Jogee and Ruddock:

en.wikipedia.org

R v Jogee - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org



www.mountfordchambers.com

BLOG: Joint Enterprise and the Real Impact of Jogee - Mountford Chambers - London Barristers Chambers

Tom Edwards looks at the impact of the shift from Joint Enterprise to Common Purpose in the five years since Jogee, and considers its impact in both the Crown Court and Court of Appeal.
www.mountfordchambers.com www.mountfordchambers.com

It did away with the concept of "Parasitic Accessory Liability" where accessories only had to foresee the possibility of death to require the same mens rea standard for accessories as principals.
AVOIDING FUTURE WRONG TURNS –THE CORRECT APPROACH
The Supreme Court has helpfully identified the correct approach in future cases:-
  1. Was the defendant in fact a participant? Did he assist or encourage the commission of the crime? It may take many forms and may include providing support by contributing to the force of numbers in a hostile confrontation.
  2. Did the defendant intend to encourage or assist the principal with whatever mental element the offence requires of the principal?
  3. If the crime requires a particular intent then the secondary party must intend to encourage or assist with the same intent.

  1. Thus, if the defendant encourages the principal to take another’s bicycle without the owner’s permission and return it after use but the principal keeps it, the latter will be guilty of theft but as the secondary party did not intend to permanently deprive the owner of his bike he will be guilty of the lesser offence of unauthorised taking.
  2. In the case of concerted physical attack where there may often be no practical distinction to draw between an intention by D2 to assist D1 to act with the intention of causing grievous bodily harm at least, and D2 having the intention himself that such harm be caused, then to follow the Wesley- Smith and Reid approach will be safe. The Crown must prove that D2 intended that the victim should suffer grievous bodily harm at least.
  3. If the encouragement or assistance is given some time before the crime is committed and at a time when it is not clear to D2 what D1 may or may not decide to do, then a jury must be directed that it must be proved that D2 intended to encourage or assist D1 with the requisite criminal intent.
  4. Such a direction would, for example, fit the case where D2 supplies D1 with a weapon where D1 has no lawful reason for possessing it, intending to help D1 by giving him the means to commit a crime or one of a range of crimes but having no further interest in what D1 does or whether he in fact uses the weapon at all.
  5. In such a case it will be important when directing a jury to remind them of the difference between intention and desire.
  6. In the case of a prior joint criminal venture it may be necessary to direct a jury that the secondary party’s intention to assist and indeed his intention that the crime should be committed, may be conditional. A group of young men which faces down a rival group may hope that the rivals will slink quietly away but it may well be a perfectly proper inference that all were intending that if resistance were to be met, grievous bodily harm at least should be done.
  7. In deciding whether D2 shared a common purpose or common intent with D1 (the two are the same) it would be appropriate to adopt the time- honoured direction that the jury must be sure that D1’s act was within the scope of the joint venture, that is, to be sure that D2 expressly or tacitly agreed to a plan which included D1 going as far a he did and committing Crime B if the occasion arose.
  8. It is not necessary, particularly in a case of a spontaneous outbreak of multi- handed violence, for the jury to be sure that there was some form of express or tacit agreement. What has to be proved is not the existence of an agreement between the defendants but that if D2 joins in he appreciated that the group is out to cause serious injury. From this fact, if proved, a jury may infer that he intended to encourage or assist the deliberate infliction of serious bodily injury and/or intended that it should happen if necessary.

  1. If D2 is party to a violent attack on another without an intent to assist or encourage causing death or really serious harm but the violence escalates resulting in death, D2 will be not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter.
  2. So also if he participates by encouragement or assistance in any other unlawful act which all sober and reasonable people would realise carried the risk of some harm (not necessarily serious) to another and death in fact results. The test is objective.
  3. However, it is possible for death to be caused by some overwhelming supervening event by the perpetrator which nobody in the defendant’s shoes could have contemplated might happen and is of such a character as to relegate his acts to history; in that case the defendant will bear no criminal responsibility for the death.
  4. What matters is whether D2 encouraged or assisted the crime with the requisite intent. He does not have to encourage or assist a particular way of committing it, although he may sometimes do so.
  5. The previous focus on what D2 knew about the weapon D1 was carrying should give way to an examination of whether D2 intended to assist in the crime charged.
  6. Knowledge or ignorance that weapons generally or a particular weapon is carried by D1 will be evidence going to what the intention of D2 was and may be irresistible evidence one way or the other; but it is evidence and no more.
  7. Where the offence does not require mens rea, the only mens rea required of the secondary party is that he intended to encourage or assist the perpetrator to do the prohibited act with knowledge of any facts and circumstances for it to be a prohibited act.
Click to expand...
 
Tomorrow's court listing is up. Sentencing hearing starts at 10:15AM:

Court 6 - sitting at 10:00 am

HIS HONOUR JUDGE SPENCER KC​

For Directions
T20237073****** ******33JJ0397723LEICMCPS
RESERVED TO HHJ SPENCER KC. TO BE PRODUCED.

NOT BEFORE 10:15 am
For Sentence
T20227026BUKHARI Ansreen33JJ0349622LEICMCPS
BUKHARI Mahek33JJ0349622
AKHTAR Natasha33JJ0349622
RESERVED TO HHJ SPENCER KC. TO BE PRODUCED. LINKED TO:

T20227059JAMAL Ameer33JJ0349622LRUTMCPS
GULAMUSTAFA Sanaf33JJ0349622
RESERVED TO HHJ SPENCER KC. TO BE PRODUCED. LINKED TO:

T20227027JAMAL Raees33JJ0349622LEICMCPS
KARWAN Rekan33JJ0349622
RESERVED TO HHJ SPENCER KC. TO BE PRODUCED.
 
I guess there will be a lot of mitigation - I wonder if Jamal's rape conviction will be mentioned?. I am interested in hearing the judge's comments on this whole mess. I'm working but will try and sneak a look at the updates!
 
Legal said:
I guess there will be a lot of mitigation - I wonder if Jamal's rape conviction will be mentioned?. I am interested in hearing the judge's comments on this whole mess. I'm working but will try and sneak a look at the updates!
Click to expand...
I'm also working but my boss is on holiday this week, so I'll be alone in the office and with no restrictions on the internet I can pretty much follow every word!

The benefits of working for a very small company :)
 
She said that Rekan Karwan, who was driving Mahek's Audi TT when the fatal crash happened, only ever intended to "scare" Saqib and never intended any serious harm to Saqib or Hashim.

Live court updates as Mahek Bukhari and others are sentenced

I'm sorry but these kind of statements infuriate me. The jury found he did intend to cause at least really serious harm. She shouldn't be allowed to claim otherwise in mitigation!

and as for this -

He urged the judge to make the minimum term for Raees Jamal's life sentence to run concurrently with his rape sentence.

Outrageous!
 
Mr Menon told Judge Timothy Spencer KC to be unemotional in chosing the sentences today.

"Your honour repeatedly instructed the jury to keep emotion out of it. You honour needs to direct yourself in the same way."


I wonder how that's going to go down with the Judge, being told how to do his job
 
Alyce said:
Mr Menon told Judge Timothy Spencer KC to be unemotional in chosing the sentences today.

"Your honour repeatedly instructed the jury to keep emotion out of it. You honour needs to direct yourself in the same way."


I wonder how that's going to go down with the Judge, being told how to do his job
Click to expand...
He laid it on thick! I think he might have gone a bit too far with that comment though.
Looks likely that the passenger defendants will all be appealing their manslaughter convictions. Perhaps they'll tell the actual truth during the appeal process even if the actual truth makes them look somewhat more culpable than their original accounts does.

JMO - but I believe Mo Patel's acquittal demonstrates that if the passenger defendants had just told the truth about what happened then they would have walked free. Instead they pretended not to notice anything or have any knowledge about what was going on and I believe this withholding of information was what got them convicted rather than any solid proof of their actions on that night.
 
bobbymkii said:
JMO - but I believe Mo Patel's acquittal demonstrates that if the passenger defendants had just told the truth about what happened then they would have walked free. Instead they pretended not to notice anything or have any knowledge about what was going on and I believe this withholding of information was what got them convicted rather than any solid proof of their actions on that night.
Click to expand...

(Snipped for focus) - Totally agree! Those three's apparent deafness, blindness and removal of brains to question or think about anything during the events of that night really annoyed me, particularly compared with Patel's honesty (as verified by the police investigations). I ended up wanting Patel to go free and them to be convicted of something, regardless of the fact that his admission of carrying a weapon was more evidence against him than existed for any of the others. I was happy to see the jury felt the same as me!

I'll grant that manslaughter seems a little harsh, and if a lesser appropriate charge exists I'd be fine with a downgrade on appeal, but I hope they still have some form of conviction for it, as the lying suggests they were more involved than they're admitting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is DeKalb County John Doe (2022)?

Members online

... and 195 more.
Total: 3,361 (members: 196, guests: 3,165)

Online statistics

Members online
196
Guests online
3,165
Total visitors
3,361
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
602,629
Messages
18,144,118
Members
231,468
Latest member
CapeCodTodd
Back
Top