Caselaw Digest
Caselaw Digest

Ihab Ashaoui v R

[2023] EWCA Crim 455
Imagine a case where someone is accused of being part of a small bank robbery plot (Trial 1). The jury can't decide. Then they're accused of being part of a much bigger, longer-running robbery gang (Trial 2), and again the jury can't decide. Trial 3 happens, and this time they're found guilty. The court says Trial 2 was different enough to the first that the third trial was fair, not a repeat of the same thing twice.

Key Facts

  • Ihab Ashaoui was convicted after a trial of conspiracy to commit robbery and conspiracy to handle stolen goods.
  • He had been tried twice previously for related offences; the jury failed to reach a verdict in both trials.
  • Ashaoui appealed his conviction, arguing the third trial was a second retrial and an abuse of process.
  • The first trial concerned a foiled robbery attempt on December 19, 2018, focusing on a smaller, two-person conspiracy.
  • The second and third trials involved a wider, larger conspiracy to rob cash-in-transit vans over a period from May 2018 to November 2019, involving multiple robberies and co-conspirators.
  • New evidence in the second trial included Ashaoui's hiring of Mercedes vehicles used in the robberies and his involvement in money laundering.
  • The prosecution argued that the second trial was a 'fresh trial' on wider allegations, not a retrial of the first.

Legal Principles

A third trial is not prohibited as a matter of law, but a second retrial after two jury disagreements must be exercised with extreme caution and is confined to cases of extreme gravity with very powerful evidence.

R v Bell [2010] 1 Cr App R 27

The decision of whether a second trial is a retrial is a question of fact; it must be a further trial on the same key issues and with the same parties.

R v Ashaoui [2023] EWCA Crim 455

In assessing whether a second retrial should be permitted, the court must conduct an informed and dispassionate assessment of how the interests of justice in the widest sense are best served, considering both the defendant's and the public's interests.

R v Bowe (Privy Council)

Outcomes

Appeal dismissed.

The court found the second trial was not a retrial of the first because it involved a much wider conspiracy, more defendants, and additional evidence (car hire, money laundering) not presented in the first trial. The judge's finding that the second trial was not a retrial was considered open to her on the evidence, and the third trial was not therefore a second retrial and not an abuse of process. The interests of justice were served by the third trial given the seriousness of the offences and the public interest in convicting those responsible.

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.