Mohammed Rafaqit Kayani murder trial nears conclusion

The complex trial of two men accused of murdering Mohammed Rafaqit Kayani with machetes in Slough is reaching its conclusion after three weeks in court.

Mr Kayani, 24, from Slough, died from a fatal stab wound during an incident in Keel Drive on August 30.

Riaz Miah, 21, of no fixed abode and Hassan Al-Kubanji, 21, of Peabody Avenue, London, were charged with murder and began standing trial on February 13.

A third defendant, Miguel John, aged 41, of Concorde Way, Slough, is also on trial for assisting the offenders.

All three men are also facing drug charges and possession of a blade in a public place.

Today (March 3), Her Honour Judge Heather Norton summarised the case, telling the jury they must consider if Miah and Al-Kubanji’s claims of self-defence are justified.

On the night of the attack, Miah and Al-Kubanji went to Concorde Way to see John.

At the park there, they spotted a man who was ‘staring’ at them and seemed ‘angry’ because they were ‘on his [drug dealing] turf’. This was Adil Mahmood, an acquaintance of Mr Kayani.

They claimed that Mr Kayani approached them ‘aggressively’ swinging a ‘sword’ or ‘a huge knife’ while wearing a balaclava – and that they tried to ‘defuse the situation’.

The court heard they thought they heard Mr Mahmood say ‘get the strap’ or ‘get the mash’ which they took as an instruction to go and fetch a gun.

They ran out of the park, purportedly because Al-Kubanji believed there may have been ‘others’ with Mr Mahmood and Mr Kayani that harm them.

Al-Kubanji said Mr Kayani ‘kept coming back to attack him’ and he was attempting to ‘defend and disarm’ him, with the hope of ‘bringing the attack to an end’.

The encounter continued in the car park of the Hindu temple on Keel Drive, where Mr Kayani was ultimately killed.

Miah said he believed Al-Kubanji would be killed by Mr Kayani and he ‘feared for a friend’.

Having already taken ‘a blow to the forehead’ making him ‘disorientated’, Miah said he ‘entered fight or flight mode’, took the machete from Al-Kubanji and lashed out at Mr Kayani with it.

He struck Mr Kayami in the legs, so he landed on the floor ‘to make sure he wouldn’t get up again’.

There were multiple machete blows made to Mr Kayani – and as such, murder is the only charge on the table, not manslaughter.

The incident is being considered as joint participation – meaning that, no matter who delivered the fatal blow, both defendants can be found guilty of murder.

This is provided that both shared the intention to commit the offence and ‘play[ed] some part, big or small’, by ‘helping or encouraging’, or by making ‘a plan or agreement’ to do it.

Part of the self-defence claim rests on whether the jury is sure that Al-Kubanji and Miah were aware that the other was holding a weapon.

Al-Kubanji said he was ‘unaware’ that Miah had a machete when they went out together.

He said that he believed Miah was unarmed when they first encountered Mr Mahmood and Mr Kayani in the park and feared his friend was going to be killed.

The question of whether either defendant could legitimately claim self-defence rests on whom the jury think is the ‘aggressor’ (ie, the person initiating the attack) – them, or the victim.

It also depends on whether the jury think they used ‘reasonable force’ in response to an attack or threatened attack – as opposed to ‘excessive and out of proportion’ force.

This is more credible if the two ‘honestly believed’ that there was a gun at the scene or could have been brought there – ‘even if that was a mistaken belief’, said Judge Norton.

“A mistaken belief may nevertheless be an honest one,” she said.

Self-defence can include a pre-emptive strike against someone in the face of a threatened or imminent attack, if it is an ‘instinctive’ reaction that is reasonable in force.

The jury will also have to think about whether there was any way for the pair to have safely retreated. In a situation where their lives may be in imminent danger, there is ‘no duty’ to retreat.

As for John’s involvement, his charge relates to the fact that he helped dispose of two machetes linked to the attack.

John said the pair had instructed him to dispose of a bundle containing the weapons and not to ask any questions.

Police recovered a bundle containing two machetes, which was in John’s possession.

For John to be found guilty of assisting an offender, at least one of the other men would need to be found guilty of murder – and John would have to ‘know or believe’ that one of the others had committed an offence.

The jury would have to be convinced that, by disposing of the machetes, John had intended to ‘hinder or harm’ the investigation into the crime; and that he was not under duress.

John spoke to police that day and told them that Miah and Al-Kubanji were at his house and that he was ‘scared’.

He told police that the pair had said they ‘owned’ him and had made threats of killing him and his family. The pair denied that they had threatened John.

For John to have been under duress, he would have to have genuinely feared that harm would come to him or his close family, immediately or almost immediately, if he did not do as he was told.

There would have to be ‘no other reasonable action’, such as going to the police – the jury will have to decide if ‘a reasonable person’ may have acted as he did that day.

The jury were also instructed by Judge Norton to consider whether John knew the machetes were in that bundle.

The trial continues. The jury is expected to begin its deliberations on Tuesday, March 7.