R v Ibrahim Khan

A trial judge must give the jury a coherent rehearsal of the main arguments advanced by the defence. Where the defendant has said little or nothing in interview and has not given or called evidence, the judge ordinarily need identify the significant points arising from the prosecution evidence and the defence speech; an exhaustive recital is unnecessary. A judge need not analyse every defence submission separately. In sentencing a child convicted of murder, age must be reflected in the statutory starting point, but substantial aggravating features may justify a significant increase. A minimum term is not manifestly excessive where it remains proportionate to the seriousness of the offending.

The applicant was convicted at the Crown Court at Luton of murder and possessing an article with a blade or point in a public place. He was sentenced to detention during Her Majesty’s Pleasure with a minimum term of 16 years. He renewed applications for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence. The conviction challenge alleged that the trial judge had failed fairly and comprehensively to summarise the defence, including a prepared police statement and evidence relied upon by the defence. The sentence challenge alleged that insufficient weight had been given to the applicant’s age and the wider circumstances. The central issues were whether the summing-up was adequate and whether the sentence was arguably manifestly excessive.

All applications were refused, including the applications for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence and the application for a representation order.

1. Defence summing-up. The duty to identify the defence in a summing-up depends on the circumstances of the case. Where a defendant has said little or nothing in interview and has elected not to give or call evidence, the judge ordinarily need remind the jury of the significant assistance extracted from prosecution witnesses and the significant points made in the defence speech. The judge need not rehearse that material extensively or in detail, but must provide a coherent rehearsal of the main arguments advanced by the defence and the evidence underpinning them. The court endorsed and applied the approach stated in R v Singh-Mann [2014] EWCA Crim 717, which had also been approved and applied in R v Lunkulu [2015] EWCA Crim 1350.
2. The judge had fairly and adequately summarised the defence case, including the prepared statement, the alleged imminent danger, the self-defence case, the relevant prosecution evidence, the background hostility and the principal defence arguments. He was not required to analyse every point separately, recite agreed facts already available to the jury, or rehearse the closing submissions in full. The conviction was therefore safe.
3. Sentence. Applying section 322 and Schedule 21 of the Sentencing Act 2020, the judge had correctly taken a 12-year starting point reflecting the applicant’s age. The planning, use of a large knife in a busy public place outside a school, the presence of children, concealment of the knife and mobile telephone, and the earlier knife-related attack were significant aggravating features. The age of the offender had been fairly accounted for, and the 16-year minimum term was proportionate and not arguably manifestly excessive.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The renewed applications for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence were refused. The application for a representation order was also refused.
• Crown Court at Luton: Following a trial before Goss J and a jury, the applicant was convicted of murder and possessing an article with a blade or point in a public place. He was sentenced to detention during Her Majesty’s Pleasure with a minimum term of 16 years.