R v Anwar [2016] EWCA Crim 551

A conspiracy to rob is an agreement between two or more people to commit a robbery. This crime can be prosecuted even if the actual robbery never takes place.

• To convict someone of conspiracy to rob, prosecutors typically need evidence that the defendant planned or discussed the robbery with others and intended to participate in it.

Possession of a firearm refers to having a gun or other weapon under your control.

• The specific laws around firearm possession vary depending on jurisdiction. 

• You may need a permit or license to possess a firearm legally. 

In criminal law, joint enterprise, also known as acting in concert, is a legal doctrine that holds all participants in a criminal act liable for the entire crime, even if they only played a minor role. 

• For a joint enterprise to be established, prosecutors typically need to show that the defendant acted with a common purpose with others to achieve a criminal objective.

An appeal on the sufficiency of the evidence is a legal challenge arguing that the prosecution did not present enough evidence to convict the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt.

On 24th March 2015, the victim, Mr. Rahul Samma (“Defendants”), was contacted and lured to Draycot Road in Wanstead under the pretext of purchasing cannabis.

• Initially, the Defendants faced charges of attempted murder, conspiracy to commit robbery, and possession of a firearm with intent to commit robbery.

• However, the charges of attempted murder and possession of a firearm were dismissed during trial.

Upon arrival at Draycot Road, Mr. Samma was confronted by individuals in a silver Vauxhall Astra.

• During the encounter, one of the assailants pointed a shotgun at Mr. Samma's face, and another brandished a knife.

• A struggle ensued, during which Mr. Samma handed over his watch.

The prosecution alleged that the shotgun was used in the incident, with witnesses reporting that one of the Defendants said, "Shoot him, shoot him" during the confrontation.

• Shots were fired at Mr. Samma, though fortunately, he was not fatally injured.

The prosecution relied on CCTV footage, cell site analysis of mobile phones attributed to the Defendants, and other circumstantial evidence (such as vehicle movements and communication patterns) to establish coordination and planning among the Defendants before and after the incident.

The trial judge initially ruled that there was no case to answer regarding attempted murder and possession of a firearm, prompting the Crown to appeal this decision under the Criminal Justice Act 2003.

The Court of Appeal ultimately allowed the appeal, stating that there was sufficient evidence for the case to proceed to trial based on conspiracy to rob and the use of a firearm in the commission of the offense.

The trial initially commenced with charges including attempted murder, conspiracy to commit robbery, and possession of a firearm with intent to commit robbery against the Defendants.

• During the trial, the judge ruled that there was no case to answer regarding the charges of attempted murder and possession of a firearm.

• This decision was based on the judge's assessment of the evidence presented.

The Crown appealed this ruling under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 provisions, arguing that there was sufficient evidence for the case to proceed to trial, particularly on the conspiracy to commit robbery.

The Court of Appeal reviewed the evidence and the trial judge's decision.

• They found prima facie evidence to suggest the Defendants' involvement in the conspiracy to rob based on planning, coordination, and actions observed before, during, and after the incident.

• Therefore, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, overturning the trial judge's decision that there was no case to answer.

As a result of the appeal, the proceedings in the Crown Court were ordered to be resumed, specifically on the charge of conspiracy to commit robbery.

The charges of attempted murder and possession of a firearm with intent to commit robbery remained dismissed.

The case described involves complex legal concepts and procedural maneuvers within the criminal justice system, highlighting the interplay between charges, evidence, and appeals.

Conspiracy to rob is a serious offense that hinges on the agreement between individuals to commit robbery, irrespective of whether the crime is successfully carried out. 

The outcome of the appeal directs the case back to the Crown Court for continuation, specifically on the conspiracy to rob charge, highlighting how legal proceedings can interfere based on interpretations of evidence and the application of legal doctrines like conspiracy and joint enterprise.

This case illustrates the nuanced and iterative nature of criminal proceedings, where charges may evolve or be dismissed based on the presentation and evaluation of evidence at different stages of the legal process.