[2025] EWCA Crim 1353

The deceased, to whom we shall refer as Saqib and Hashim, died in a car crash in the early hours of 11 February 2022. They were travelling in a Skoda Fabia car along the A46 dual carriageway. Hashim was driving, with Saqib in the passenger seat. At about 1:28am Saqib made a 999 call. The transcript includes him saying,

“... I’m being followed by two vehicles. ... They’re trying to block me in. ... There’s guys following me, they’ve got balaclavas on and they’re trying to kill me .... they’re trying to ram me off the road ... They’ve hit into the back of the car. Very fast! They’re trying to ram us off the road please I’m begging you, I’m gonna die, I think I’m gonna die”.

Screams were then heard and at 1:33am the call disconnected. The car left the carriageway, hit and crossed the central reservation barrier, collided with a tree, and burst into flames. Saqib and Hashim died instantly from multiple injuries sustained on impact, before the fire had taken hold. Each was 21 years old at the time of his death.

Investigation revealed that two other vehicles, an Audi TT and a Seat Leon, had been close to the Skoda at the time. The eight defendants had all been in the cars: the Bukharis and Patel were in the Audi, which was driven by Karwan. The other appellants were in the Seat, which was driven by Raees Jamal. The prosecution case at trial was, in summary, that the Audi and the Leon had engaged in a co-ordinated high-speed pursuit of the Skoda which culminated in the Leon ramming it from behind and causing the crash. It was alleged that these were events that all the defendants had agreed should happen, intending the occupants of the Skoda to be caused at least really serious harm. The background, as presented by the prosecution, was this.

For some years up to January 2022, Saqib and Ansreen Bukhari, who was married, had been in a sexual relationship. When she ended it, Saqib was unable to accept her decision. He wanted the return of £3,000 he claimed to have spent on her. He had three sexually explicit videos and images of her in his possession and was blackmailing her by threatening to reveal the relationship and the images. Prompted by these matters Mahek Bukhari formed a plan reflected in a message she sent on 4 January 2022 that read “I’ll soon get him jumped by guys and he won’t know what day it is”. By early February 2022, the defendants had all become party to an agreement that Saqib should be attacked. A plan was formed to lure him to a meeting in a Tesco carpark in Leicester, on the promise that he would be given his money back. The two vehicles would be there, with the eight individuals in them. The aim was to obtain the phone and delete the photos and to give Saqib “a good hiding”.

The two vehicles went to the carpark, six of their occupants in possession of face coverings in the form of balaclavas or masks. Saqib arrived with his friend Hashim, who was the owner of the Skoda. Hashim’s role in these events was simply to give his friend a lift. There were calls between Mahek and Saqib and, in the event, Saqib and Hashim drove away from the carpark without stopping, possibly realising they had been set up. The defendants followed in the Audi and the Seat. They were communicating with one another via a phone line between the two cars that remained open for 14 minutes. The prosecution invited the inference that the phones were being used to co-ordinate the defendants’ movements in pursuit of a different plan, to ram the Skoda off the road, which was then executed with fatal results. A salient feature of the prosecution case was a 3-minute call from Ansreen’s phone to the phone of Hashim, which began at 1.24am and ended at 1:27am, less than a minute before the 999 call. The prosecution case was that this was a call from Mahek to Saqib, of a threatening nature.

To prove the case the prosecution relied on a combination of direct and circumstantial evidence. The main strands were: (1) evidence of the relationship between Ansreen and Saqib and messages he had sent her after the break-up; (2) messages Mahek had sent in January 2022 that indicated a desire for retribution; (3) a sequence of events compiled from call data, messages, emails, telematics, ANPR and CCTV; (4) Saqib’s 999 call; (5) the evidence of a forensic collision investigator. The investigator said, in summary, that the most likely cause of the crash was some external influence such as collision with another vehicle; that the cars had been travelling at speeds well beyond the limit - up to 89mph in the case of the Skoda and 97mph in the case of the Audi; and the evidence indicated the likely collision was between the front of the Seat Leon and the rear of the Skoda before the Skoda went out of control and hit the tree. In addition, reliance was placed on DNA evidence from a forensic scientist, and evidence of what were said to be weapons in the two cars: a wheel brace and a curved pointed metal tool; and prison calls. None of the defendants called for help. They put forward innocent accounts which, the prosecution said, were concocted in an attempt to avoid responsibility.

Having thus set out the essential background we can turn to the first of the appeals and applications now before the court.