R v Sheikh and others (Respondents)

Permission to Appeal application lodged

Case summary
Permission to Appeal
Previous proceedings

Case summary

Case ID

UKSC/2025/0070

Parties

Appellant(s)

Crown Prosecution Service

Respondent(s)

Shagufa Sheikh

Khalid Sheikh

Shabnam Sheikh

Asgar Sheikh

Issue

Did the Court of Appeal err in its interpretation and application of section 5 of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 (“DVCVA”)?

Facts

This appeal concerns the proper construction of section 5 of the DVCVA, which governs the offence of causing or allowing a vulnerable adult to die or suffer serious physical harm (“the Offence”). The victim of the serious physical harm is Ambreen Sheikh (“Ambreen”), who now survives in a persistent vegetative state. Ambreen lived in the same household as the respondents: Asgar Sheikh (“Asgar”), Shabnam Sheikh (“Shabnam”), Khalid Sheikh (“Khalid”) and Shagufa Sheikh (“Shagufa”). Ambreen is married to Asgar. Shabnam and Khalid are Asgar’s parents and Shagufa is his sister. On 1 August 2015, Shagufa called an ambulance stating that Ambreen had been unwell for two days and was unconscious. Ambreen was taken to hospital. Upon her admission, Ambreen appeared in an emaciated and neglected state. Safeguarding concerns were raised owing to the discovery by medical staff of a caustic burn lesion on Ambreen’s sacrum, a caustic burn to her right ear and marks to her heels and toes. Expert evidence indicated it was highly likely that Ambreen had sustained the sacral caustic burn injury a day or two before she ingested glimepiride, an anti-diabetic drug prescribed to Shabham which induced hypoglycaemia and ultimately resulted in brain damage and Ambreen’s now persistent vegetative state. However, the prosecution could not prove who in the household had caused the serious injury to Ambreen’s sacrum or who may have administered the drug causing her unconsciousness. The respondents were therefore indicted as secondary parties, vicariously responsible for the perpetration of the unlawful act in terms of “allowing the serious bodily harm of a vulnerable person.” Upon the conclusion of the prosecution’s case at trial, the respondents (who were then the defendants) submitted that counts 1 to 5 of the indictment, which charged them (separately) with an offence contrary to section 5 DVCVA, should be withdrawn from the jury and that Not Guilty verdicts should be directed in respect of those counts. These submissions were made on the basis that there was insufficient evidence on which a reasonable jury, properly directed, could convict the defendants. In a detailed written ruling, the Judge rejected the defendants’ submissions of no case to answer. On appeal, however, the Court of Appeal (“CA”) found that the Judge had adopted an impermissibly wide interpretation of section 5 DVCVA. While the CA did not accede to all the respondents’ submissions, it held crucially that the words “circumstances of the kind” in section 5(1)(d)(iii) does not necessarily encapsulate all and any serious harm caused or inflicted by any unlawful means if it occurs within the domestic setting. In this connection, the CA stated that the offence contrary to section 5 must not be so widely interpreted as to undermine the safeguards in section 5(1)(d)(iii), all of which must be given due weight. Applying its discussion of the law to the facts, the CA held that the respondents’ submission of no case to answer as regards the counts of causing or allowing the serious physical harm of a vulnerable adult should have succeeded. Accordingly, the CA allowed the respondents’ appeals against conviction on the counts relating to the offences contrary to section 5. The Crown now seeks permission to appeal to the Supreme Court.