Mahboob, R. v

A submission of no case to answer may properly be rejected where the prosecution evidence, viewed cumulatively, permits a jury to infer the defendant’s participation in the offence. Circumstantial evidence may include a prompt identification of the defendant entering recently stolen property, association with an admitted offender, proximity to the property, concealment after police attendance, and evidence suggesting that the offender was not acting alone.

Possible innocent explanations and discrepancies in descriptions ordinarily go to the jury where they do not make the prosecution evidence too tenuous to support a conviction.

The appellant was convicted of robbery at Leeds Crown Court on 8 December 2017. The robbery involved the theft at knifepoint of a car by two men. One of them, Mahmood, pleaded guilty.

The appellant appealed against conviction after the trial judge rejected a submission of no case to answer. The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence, including an identification of the appellant entering the stolen car shortly after the robbery, his later arrest while hiding near the car, his association with Mahmood, and other evidence concerning their flight.

The central issue was whether that evidence was sufficiently probative of the appellant’s identity as the second robber to leave the case for the jury.

1. Appeal dismissed. The trial judge was right to reject the submission of no case to answer. There was plainly evidence on which a properly directed jury could conclude that the appellant was the second robber.

2. The evidence was capable of supporting that inference when viewed cumulatively. The robbery was committed by two Asian men. Within 90 minutes, the appellant and Mahmood were found close to the recently driven stolen car. Mahmood was an admitted robber, the appellant knew him, and the appellant was hiding when arrested.

3. The finding of three discarded gloves was capable of supporting an inference that Mahmood had not been alone in the car when police found it. The appellant had denied ever being in the car, but Mr Morgan had identified him as entering it around 20 to 30 minutes after the robbery. The appellant’s refusal to provide his telephone PIN was also evidence on which the prosecution could rely.

4. The defence could properly challenge Mr Morgan’s evidence and advance the possibility that the appellant was collected after the robbery. However, that possibility was not inconsistent with the remaining circumstantial evidence. Discrepancies concerning appearance, clothing and descriptions, and the competing explanations for events in William Street, were matters for the jury rather than grounds for withdrawing the case.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Appeal against conviction dismissed: [2018] EWCA Crim 1767.
• Crown Court at Leeds: On 8 December 2017, the appellant was convicted by a jury of robbery after the trial judge rejected a submission of no case to answer.