Mohammed, R v

A conviction cannot stand where it necessarily depends on a factual premise that the jury has rejected by an acquittal on another count, and there is no independent evidential basis for the conviction. A defendant may in principle participate in a robbery through joint enterprise without personally possessing a knife. However, where the prosecution and the summing-up identify possession and use of a knife as the sole basis for joint participation, an acquittal of possessing that knife leaves no evidence capable of supporting the robbery convictions. Such irreconcilable verdicts are rare, but the resulting convictions must be quashed.

Following a retrial in the Crown Court at Derby, Tariq Boota Mohammed was convicted of two robberies and acquitted of possessing a bladed article. He received concurrent sentences of two years’ imprisonment for the robberies.

The prosecution alleged that Mohammed participated in his co-accused’s robberies as part of a joint enterprise. Its sole evidential basis was that Mohammed produced and waved a knife while the co-accused demanded mobile telephones. The trial judge directed the jury that this was the decisive question on the robbery counts.

Mohammed appealed against conviction, contending that the acquittal on the knife count was inconsistent with the robbery convictions.

1. Appeal allowed. The convictions on the two robbery counts were quashed.
2. The prosecution case was that the appellant was party to a joint enterprise. Although he did not demand the telephones, it alleged that he produced and waved a knife while his co-accused committed the robberies. That was the only evidence relied upon to establish his participation.
3. The summing-up made that factual issue decisive. The jury were directed that, if sure that the appellant produced a knife in the course of the co-accused’s conduct, he was guilty; otherwise, he was not guilty. The acquittal on the bladed-article count necessarily showed that the jury were not satisfied that he possessed the knife at the material time.
4. A defendant may, in principle, participate in a robbery by joint enterprise without possessing a knife. On the evidence and directions in this trial, however, there was no alternative basis on which the appellant could properly be convicted of robbery once the jury rejected the knife allegation.
5. The verdicts therefore rested on inconsistent factual premises and could not be satisfactorily explained. This was a rare case in which the inconsistency required the robbery convictions to be quashed.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the appeal against conviction and quashed the two robbery convictions.
• Crown Court at Derby: At a retrial, convicted the appellant of two robberies and acquitted him of possessing a bladed article. No citation was stated.