header-logo header-logo

09 March 2007
Issue: 7263 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

CRIMINAL LAW

R v Rahman [2007] EWCA Crim 342, [2007] All ER (D) 309 (Feb)

The court gave guidance on joint enterprise in a murder case. Where P is the killer, who is guilty of murder; V is the victim; and D is a defendant other than P who has participated in the attack and realised that one of the attackers, with intent to cause V really serious bodily harm, might kill, or intended that such harm would be caused to V, or realised that one of the attackers might cause such harm to V intending to cause such harm:

(i) What was P’s act which caused the death of V?
(ii)  Did D realise/foresee that one of the attackers might do this act? If yes, guilty of murder. If no, go to question (iii).
(iii) What act or acts did D realise/foresee that one of the attackers might do to cause V really serious injury?
(iv) Is this act, or are these acts, which D did realise/foresee that one of the attackers might do, of a fundamentally different nature

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
back-to-top-scroll