Mohammed Patel's acquittal and the way the evidence he provided in the trial was used by the prosecution, and the way the jury was directed in regard to it surely has to be a massive appellate issue for all of the defendants to raise when the time comes.
The judge spent the whole trial, even pausing evidence on occasion to remind the jurors that the evidence from his police interviews and trip to the witness stand could only be used against him and not the other defendants. Only for him to suddenly, when summing up state that they CAN use his evidence against the other defendants!
He admitted to wearing a disguise, carrying a weapon and disposing of his phone the following day, yet he was acquitted and the others are all found guilty? It could only be because the jury have effectively pardoned him for the detailed and seemingly truthful account he gave in his police interviews, certainly compared to the others. It's admirable that his evidence has helped bring people to justice for the horrific criminal deaths of two young men. But if they're criminally responsible based on their actions, surely he is too?
All JMO of course.
I think there may have been some nuances to the judge's instructions that weren't picked up in the reporting, and that there could have been a difference in the judge's directions as the case was going along compared to the directions in the summing up at the end of the evidence. I believe the judge would have told them that he would direct them further on that when they had heard all of the evidence.
In the first trial, Raees Jamal's barrister was asking the police officer if what Mohammed Patel had said was true, that the Seat dragged the Skoda along the road, there should be more damage on the Seat. The judge was cautioning the jury (IMO) that what MP had said was not necessarily
evidence of the truth, against his co-defendants. The barrister was trying (IMO) to elicit from the officer that firstly there was no dragging of the Skoda, and secondly that MP was lying.
link -
Raees Jamal's barrister suggests last collision between cars was 13 seconds before tree crash
Referring to a comment on the 999 recording, Mr Smith suggests the damage DS Coe found on the Seat was consisted with the Seat rear-ending the Skoda 13 seconds before the crash and he suggests that was the final collision, a full 13 seconds before the crash into the tree that killed the two young men.
He said: "I want to suggest that is the collision point and it took place 13 seconds before the Skoda hit the tree."
DS Coe replied: "It could have been a collision point" and said there could have been a further collision in addition.
Mr Smith asks if there should be more damage on the Seat Leon if, as one of the defendants said in his police interview, the Seat "dragged" the Skoda along the road. DS Coe said: "I imagine, yes."
The jury has previously been instructed by the judge not to take the statements of any of the defendants as evidence against any of the other defendants.
Day 13 court updates from murder trial of TikTok's Mahek Bukhari
The trial was proceeding to hear evidence from the witnesses and defendants, and whether or not lies would be proven during testimony was yet to be seen.
In the judge's summing up in the second trial, I believe the judge was directing the jury how to deal with the credibility of the defendants, which is a standard direction. The fact that Mahek had been proven (by her own admission) to have lied, meant that they must not rely on any of her statements to police as evidence against any of the others. She had proven herself to be unreliable. The fact that MP had not changed his story and not been
proven to have lied, meant the jury
could use his evidence as the truth against his co-defendants if they chose to. The judge wasn't telling them to accept he was telling the truth and to use it against the others, but that his credibility - in so far as the prosecution and the other teams had not been able to prove on the face of it that he lied - was in tact.
link -
Jury reminded that Mohammed Patel's interview is evidence against all eight defendants
The jury members have been instructed by Judge Spencer to treat the police interviews differently. The only two defendants who gave full accounts to detectives after their arrests were Mahek and Mohammed.
Mahek now admits she told lies in the interview - the judge has said that means the content of what she said could only be used as evidence against Mahek herself. They cannot judge the other seven based on the fact Mahek lied.
But Mohammed has stuck to his interview statements, adopting them as his defence case. That means, the judge said, the jury can use his statements about the others and about what happened in general as evidence against all eight.
Jury expected to begin deliberations -TikTok trial day 50
As regards MP's acquittal, I don't believe that it will be an appeal issue for the others. It's not just actions that must be proven, but intent or mens rea.
link -
Unlawful Act Manslaughter
[...]
Requires proof of the elements of the unlawful act
The prosecution must prove the elements of the unlawful act and also disprove any defences to the unlawful act that are raised.
This resulted in an appeal being allowed in Jennings [1990] Crim. L.R. 588. The court held that the unlawful act must be proved, both as to the actus reus and as to the mens rea. The possession of a weapon, not offensive per se, was not such an act unless accompanied by the requisite intention to use it to inflict injury. That had not been established.
Homicide: Murder and Manslaughter | The Crown Prosecution Service
The jury may have decided that based on the others lying, they had something (guilt) to hide, and based on MP telling the truth, he did not, and had not formed intention with the others.
MOO
