R v A.I.Q

On a prosecution appeal under Criminal Justice Act 2003, a secondary party may be tried and convicted for aggravated burglary even though an alleged principal has pleaded guilty to a lesser offence or has otherwise not been convicted of the aggravated offence. The earlier plea does not, without an express concession, establish evidential insufficiency. It is inadmissible as evidence of the secondary party’s guilt, and the jury must be directed not to speculate about it. Where evidence capable of proving participation in a planned burglary also supports a sure inference that the secondary party was trusted to know weapons would be carried, a no-case ruling is erroneous. Such a prosecution will not ordinarily amount to an abuse of process; a stay is an exceptional remedy.

The prosecution appealed under section 58 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 against a ruling that AIQ had no case to answer on aggravated burglary. AIQ was alleged to have driven two men to and from a flat during a burglary, knowing that they intended to commit aggravated burglary and were carrying weapons. One man pleaded guilty to aggravated burglary. The other pleaded guilty to burglary and assault occasioning actual bodily harm after the prosecution accepted lesser pleas and did not pursue the aggravated burglary charge.

The trial judge considered that the prosecution’s acceptance of the lesser pleas created a possibility that the principal offender had not known that a weapon would be taken into the premises. He ruled that the evidence was insufficient to prove that AIQ knew of the weapon. The central issue was whether the earlier pleas prevented a properly directed jury from drawing that inference.

The court granted leave, allowed the appeal and reversed the ruling that there was no case to answer on aggravated burglary. It ordered that a fresh trial could take place in the Crown Court, preferably before a different judge and at a different court centre. The prosecution could include both the aggravated burglary count and the alternative burglary count.

1. Earlier proceedings. The court followed the principle in Hui Chi-ming v The Queen [1992] 1 AC 34: a secondary offender may be tried even though the alleged principal has previously been acquitted or convicted of a lesser offence. The earlier verdict is irrelevant to the later defendant’s guilt and is no more than the opinion of a different jury.
2. The prosecution’s acceptance of lesser pleas from G did not itself amount to a concession that the evidence was insufficient to prove aggravated burglary. The reasons for accepting those pleas, even if known, were irrelevant and inadmissible in AIQ’s trial. The fact of G’s pleas was also inadmissible. The jury should instead have been directed that there was no evidence about G’s position and must not speculate.
3. No case to answer. The evidence was capable of supporting a sure inference that AIQ knew of and participated in a plan to burgle the premises. The same evidence could logically support an inference that she knew weapons would be carried. Her role as the trusted driver, including carrying away the stolen property, could support the inference that the principal offenders trusted her to know the scope of the plan and the presence of weapons.
4. Abuse of process. Although the point was not the subject of the appeal, the court stated that no abuse finding could properly have been made. There was evidence on which the jury could convict AIQ of aggravated burglary, and the exceptional remedy of staying the prosecution was unjustified.
5. Under sections 67 and 61 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, the ruling was wrong in law and unreasonable, so the court could reverse it and order a fresh trial.

Because anonymity was preserved, the court disapplied the other reporting restrictions under section 71 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, while directing that AIQ must not be named or otherwise identified.

1. Crown Court: The trial judge ruled that AIQ had no case to answer on the aggravated burglary count. The jury was discharged after the prosecution gave notice of appeal.
2. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) [2024] EWCA Crim 1097: Leave to appeal was granted. The appeal was allowed, the ruling was reversed, and a fresh trial was ordered.