R v Anwar [2016] EWCA Crim 551

Key point

  • Jogee does not make a difference to the evidence required to prove mens rea and the outcomes of cases are likely similar to before Jogee

Facts

  • The victim (V) entered van to buy cannabis and had a shotgun pointed at him by a passenger while the driver pulled out a knife at him
  • A Mercedes van came by with more men
  • V escaped from the van to his car, the man with the shotgun fired two shots at him
  • A total of 6 Ds were charged with illegal possession of a firearm and attempted murder as part of a joint criminal enterprise
  • The judge ruled that there was no case to answer, citing Jogee, he held that there was no evidence of any particular D being aware that the shotgun was loaded and intending it to be used if necessary, to kill
  • The Crown submitted on appeal that the evidence supported a safe inference that anyone who agreed to and participated in the robbery must have known that a loaded gun was being carried and intended that it be used with intent to kill should the need arise

Held (Court of Appeal)

  • Appeal allowed – Ds were convicted of illegal possession and attempted murder
  • It can be safely inferred that each of the Ds knew that the gun was loaded and had an intention that the shotgun be used to kill should the need arise based on the prior planning that all Ds were involved in

Sir Brian Leveson

  • ‘we find it difficult to foresee circumstances in which there might have been a case to answer under the law before R v Jogee but, because of the way in which the law is now articulated, there no longer is’: [20]
  • Citing Jogee at [94] (Lord Hughes and Lord Toulson pointed out conditional intent that a crime is to be committed by the principal offender if the occasion arose can be inferred from evidence of foresight), ‘the same facts which would previously have been used to support the inference of mens rea before the decision in R v Jogee will equally be used now’: [22]