Caselaw Digest
Caselaw Digest

Abdirahman Dirie & Anor v R

[2023] EWCA Crim 341
Two men were convicted of murder. One appealed because his lawyer admitted there was enough evidence to convict him; the court agreed there was. The other appealed because a confession from the other man wasn't shown to the jury; the court said he had to present the confession himself, and he didn't, so the conviction stood.

Key Facts

  • Abdirahman Dirie (22) and Mustafa Omar (23) were convicted of murder, perverting the course of justice, and arson.
  • The murder of Abdul-Rahman Abu-Baker occurred on May 15, 2018, after he left a barbeque.
  • Four cars and several men were involved; the victim was shot from a Ford Kuga, which was later burned.
  • Omar's fingerprints were found on balaclava boxes in an abandoned Mercedes.
  • Dirie's DNA was found on a glove near the burned Kuga.
  • Dirie handed Omar documents during the trial containing confessions to arson and statements implicating Omar.
  • Dirie's counsel initially conceded there was sufficient evidence to link the user of phone 7708 (attributed to Dirie) to the murder.
  • The judge ruled the confession documents admissible under s.76A PACE but required Omar to present them in evidence, leading to the appeals.

Legal Principles

Admissibility of confessions in criminal proceedings.

Section 118(5) Criminal Justice Act 2003 (CJA) and common law.

Admissibility of confessions made by one accused for another co-accused.

Section 76A Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE).

Proof of statements in admissible documents.

Section 133 Criminal Justice Act 2003 (CJA).

Exclusion of evidence lacking sufficient probative value.

Section 126 Criminal Justice Act 2003 (CJA).

Outcomes

Dirie's appeal dismissed.

The court found sufficient evidence linked phone 7708 to the murder, upholding the initial concession by Dirie's counsel. The circumstantial evidence, including phone calls around the time of the murder and DNA evidence, supported the conviction.

Omar's appeal dismissed.

The court held that while the confession documents were admissible under s.76A PACE, s.133 CJA required Omar to present them as evidence, which he chose not to do. The judge's requirement for Omar to give evidence was not deemed unfair.

Similar Cases

Caselaw Digest Caselaw Digest

UK Case Law Digest provides comprehensive summaries of the latest judgments from the United Kingdom's courts. Our mission is to make case law more accessible and understandable for legal professionals and the public.

Stay Updated

Subscribe to our newsletter for the latest case law updates and legal insights.

© 2025 UK Case Law Digest. All rights reserved.

Information provided without warranty. Not intended as legal advice.