R v Mohammed Riasat Malik
[2024] EWCA Crim 292
R v Remi Loader & Anor
24 March 2023
[2023] EWCA Crim 410
Court of Appeal
Two guys were convicted of stabbing two other guys. The evidence against them was mostly circumstantial (like CCTV, weapons found at their homes), but the court decided there was enough to prove they did it and meant to kill the victims. They appealed, but the appeal court said the original trial was fair and the convictions stand.
Key Facts
- •On August 20, 2021, Robert Gaskin and Chidubeam Ogbonna were stabbed in Cambridge.
- •Remi Loader and Jacob Montique were convicted of attempted murder (Gaskin) and wounding with intent (Ogbonna).
- •The prosecution's case was largely circumstantial, relying on CCTV footage, witness statements, phone records, and evidence of weapons found in the possession of the defendants.
- •The defense argued there was insufficient evidence to prove intent to kill and that the identification of the defendants as the attackers was unreliable.
- •Contested evidence included a Lucozade bottle containing ammonia, a knife and stab vest found at Loader's home, and a stab vest found in Montique's car.
- •Evidence relating to a car crash years prior, potentially linking Loader's family to Gaskin, was admitted as motive evidence, which was disputed.
Legal Principles
Test for a 'no case to answer' submission: Whether a properly directed jury could be sure that the evidence is definitively probative of the charge.
Galbraith [1952] AC 480
Outcomes
Applications for leave to appeal against conviction refused.
The court found sufficient evidence to support the convictions, including circumstantial evidence linking the defendants to the crime scene and the nature of the attack indicating intent to kill.
Motive evidence deemed admissible.
While tenuous, the motive evidence, when considered with other evidence, was capable of supporting a conclusion that Loader was one of the attackers.
Evidence of the knife, ammonia, and stab vests deemed admissible.
The court held that the jury was entitled to consider this evidence as supporting the prosecution's case, even if not directly linked to the attack.
Judge's ruling on 'no case to answer' upheld.
The judge's reasoning was deemed thorough and his conclusions supported by the evidence.