Ameer Jamal & Ors v R

In unlawful act manslaughter, a base offence must be identified and proved. For secondary parties, a jury may convict where it is sure that the defendant participated in, or intentionally assisted or encouraged, a joint plan to cause injury; the fatal act was not an overwhelming supervening event; and the relevant mental element was established. An erroneous alternative route referring only to exposure to an obvious risk of harm will not necessarily make a conviction unsafe. Where the prosecution case, summing-up and evidence made the correct assault-based route clear, the error may be harmless in the safety-of-conviction assessment.

After a trial at the Crown Court at Leicester, the three appellants were acquitted of two murders but convicted of two counts of manslaughter arising from the deaths of Saqib Hussain and Hashim Ijazuddin during a pursuit involving two vehicles.

The Full Court granted leave on the ground that the route to verdict for unlawful act manslaughter and secondary participation was wrong in law, but refused leave on challenges to the no-case ruling and alleged inconsistency with another acquittal: [2025] EWCA Crim 1353. The appeal concerned whether the judge had failed to identify and direct on the base offence, and whether an alternative route based on exposing the deceased to an obvious risk of harm made the convictions unsafe.

Appeals dismissed.

1. Joint plan and causation. The prosecution case was that the appellants joined a plan to lure Saqib Hussain to Tesco’s car park and assault him, intending at least some harm. The court held that his attempt to escape by vehicle, and the ensuing pursuit and ramming, did not materially change the liability arising from execution of that plan. The causative event remained subject to the doctrine of an overwhelming supervening event. The court also indicated that liability could arise if the high-speed pursuit itself caused the vehicle to leave the road without a ramming collision.
2. Route to verdict. The judge had given appropriate directions on murder, manslaughter, joint participation and overwhelming supervening event. For manslaughter, the route required the jury to be sure that each appellant actively participated in a joint plan to cause some injury, or intentionally assisted or encouraged the principal in that plan; that the fatal event was not an overwhelming supervening act; and that the relevant intention or objective risk of some harm was established. Joining a plan to assault was itself an unlawful act.
3. Erroneous alternative. The reference in question 8 to a plan merely to expose the victims to an obvious risk of harm was insufficient to establish a plan to assault. Its inclusion was an error. It did not make the convictions unsafe because the prosecution’s opening, the summing-up and the surrounding directions made the assault-based plan clear, the jury were taken to have considered that correct route, and the circumstantial evidence of a joint plan involving at least some injury was overwhelming.
4. Base offence. Nothing in the judgment undermined the principle in R v Grey [2024] EWCA Crim 487 concerning the importance of identifying the base offence in unlawful act manslaughter. In this case the base offence was sufficiently identified and the directions enabled the jury to understand the issues the prosecution had to prove. The convictions were therefore safe.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — The appeals against the manslaughter convictions were dismissed. [2026] EWCA Crim 951 .
• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division), Full Court — Leave was granted on the route-to-verdict ground and refused on the no-case and perverse-verdict grounds. [2025] EWCA Crim 1353 .
• Crown Court at Leicester — Following trial, the appellants were acquitted of murder and convicted of two counts of manslaughter.