Man accused of murdering Mohammed Osman Khan cleared of all charges

In this highly unusual case, the defendant Annib Khan walked away from court a free man having admitted to stabbing his uncle and killing him.

The background

Annib Khan was charged with the murder of his uncle, Mohammed Osman Khan, and wounding his cousin, Zayn Khan, with intent to cause grievous bodily harm and possession of a bladed article. The allegations arose out of a confrontation at Annib’s grandmother’s house. The case was unusual in that the uncle, Mohammed Osman Khan, had been psychologically aggressive and physically violent towards the defendant from an early age.

The defence team argued that Mohammed and his son Zayn attacked Annib with weapons at his grandmother’s address and that the events that took place on the 21 June 2024 were part of an ongoing campaign of aggression and violence towards Annib. Mohammed had a number of serious and worrying previous convictions. He also had long history of confronting Annib and he had frequently been reported to the police.

CCTV footage was used extensively by the defence team, as it showed Zayn Khan in an agitated state prior to the murder. It also showed fierce struggles between Mohammed and Annib outside the house, where a knife could clearly be seen in Annib’s hand and a metal bar in Mohammed’s. During the course of the incident, Mohammed was stabbed twice and it was these injuries, and the associated blood loss, that resulted in his death.

Eyewitnesses corroborated Annib’s accounts of being hit over the head with objects including a metal bar. Annib confirmed that during the assault he feared for his safety and that threats were made to kill him. He accepted that during this struggle he armed himself with a kitchen knife. Paramedics were first on the scene and confirmed that Annib was bleeding from his head injuries, he was subsequently found to have sustained a closed fracture to his left ankle.  

Annib was interviewed and provided a pre-prepared statement describing the psychological aggression and physical violence Mohammed had used towards him. Although he accepted causing the fatal injury to Mohammed, he asserted that any force used by him was in lawful self-defence and/or in defence of others inside the property, including his pregnant wife.

In order to make a fair assessment of the defendant’s actions and state of mind, the jury needed to be made aware of the relevant factual background. If the jury had not been provided with details of both Mohammed’s general bad character, together with the bad character evidence that specifically related to his targeting Annib, they would be making an assessment of whether the defendant’s actions were reasonable in an evidential vacuum. That approach would have resulted in the jury effectively being misled and in the defendant being substantially prejudiced in regard to the presentation of his defence.

The significance of the case

The bad character evidence was therefore of central importance in the case; however, the non-conviction bad character material did not have the evidential springboard of a conviction, but was supported by a variety of sources of evidence including police reports, along with evidence from other family members and witnesses. One of the challenges in this case was demonstrating that the evidence of reprehensible conduct satisfied the requirements in Section 100 (1)(b) (i and ii) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, namely that the evidence carried enough weight to prove Mohammed’s violent nature and the threat he posed.

Annib’s phone had been seized by the police and forensically examined. The legal team conducted a forensic examination and found messages dating as far back as 2015 discussing Mohammed’s violent behaviour and Annib’s fears for his own safety. The messages were a contemporaneous record of Mohammed’s bad character and they also provided insight into his state of mind. This material was ultimately pivotal in securing the defendant’s acquittal.

Another interesting feature of this case was the enhanced protection afforded to householders when defending themselves against intruders. The common law defence is modified in a ‘householder case’ (s.76(8A) CJIA)1093 that is (1) where D is lawfully in a dwelling and (2) while in or partly in a building, or part of a building, that is a dwelling, and (3) D uses force (4) against someone D believes to be in, or entering, the building, or part of it, as a trespasser.

There was extensive legal argument as to the requisite level of force a householder was entitled to use, in particular relating to the second limb of the defence, namely that ‘the degree of force used by D is not to be regarded as having been reasonable in the circumstances as D believed them to be if it was grossly disproportionate in those circumstances’. This formed the basis of the agreed directions of law and the route to the verdict that was provided by the jury. 

Defendant Annib Khan walked out of the courtroom a free man acquitted of all charges in this rarest of cases.