Passengers in car involved in teen's Sheffield crash death had no plan to "kill or harm" anyone, jury told
The two back seat passengers in a car involved in the death of a teenage boy had no plan to seriously harm or kill anyone, the jury in a Sheffield murder trial have been told.
16-year-old Abdullah Taleb was "tragically in the wrong place at the wrong time” when he was hit by a grey Audi after it mounted a pavement on Staniforth Road, Darnall.
The intended target was not Abdullah, who arrived in the country just weeks earlier after fleeing war-torn Yemen, but three males riding on e-bikes and a moped, prosecutors allege.
The Audi is alleged to have missed the first rider, before hitting the second - an 18-year-old named La’Rome Divers - and finally hitting Abdullah as he walked along the pavement. The other two riders have not yet been identified.
Abdullah, previously named by police as Abdullah Yaser Abdullah Al Yazidi, suffered catastrophic injuries, and despite the best efforts of medics both at the scene and in hospital, he could not be saved and died a short time after the collision on June 4, 2025.
Mr Divers suffered extensive injuries, for which he underwent surgery.
Three men - brothers Zulkernain Ahmed, 20, and Armaan Ahmed, 27, both of Locke Drive, Darnall, along with 30-year-old Adam Mohammed, of Acres Hill Road, Darnall, are currently on trial at Sheffield Crown Court charged with the murder of Abdullah, as well as charges related to three others the defendants are alleged to have been aiming for.
Zulkernain Ahmed is alleged to have been the driver of the Audi, while Armaan Ahmed and Adam Mohammed are said to have been back seat passengers.
The Ahmed brothers are alleged to have armed themselves with a stick and baseball bat prior to the collision.
The three defendants deny the charges against them
A third Ahmed brother, Zain, 22, is alleged to have been the front seat passenger at the time of the collision.
Zain subsequently disappeared, and remains a wanted suspect, the court heard.
Following the crash, Zulkernain Ahmed provided a prepared statement to police in which he claimed his e-bike was stolen in a knifepoint robbery.
Zulkernain Ahmed alleged Mr Divers had threatened to shoot him in the face “all because he was defending the people who stole my bike.”
He claimed he received a phone call shortly before the crash, in which he was told Mr Divers and others were looking for him, and the crash occurred as he attempted to deter them and scare them away from his family home.
Prosecutors allege the Ahmed brothers armed themselves with weapons including a baseball bat prior to getting into Zulkernain Ahmed’s grey Audi car.
The jury has been sent out to begin deliberations ahead of returning verdicts.
“There was no plan to run over” man involved in feud, jury told
In his closing speech to the jury yesterday, Mark McKone KC, representing Armaan Ahmed, suggested it “is clear there was no plan to run over” Mr Divers, something, he suggested, is evidenced by the decision made by the occupants of the car to arm themselves with wooden items including sticks and bats.
“Armaan told you he took sticks on a ‘just in case’ basis…he did not intend to cause any harm to Divers, he was not even going to hold the stick if he spoke to Divers.
“He was going to leave the sticks in the car, and would only have taken them out to Divers if he attacked him with a weapon,” said Mr McKone.
He told jurors that the “most important” part of his speech was the argument that “because of the terrible collisions in the road, no-one got to see what use the wooden items would have been put to during the face-to-face confrontation.”
The second most important part of the speech, as signposted by Mr McKone, was his assertion that the men in the car did not take more dangerous weapons with them - such as knives, guns or machetes - as you might expect them to do if they had an intention to cause really serious harm.
He asked the jury: “Are you sure there was any plan at all, are you sure those young men gave any proper thought, or discussed what they would do if they found Divers?”
Mr McKone suggested that if they agreed with that explanation of his client’s conduct, or even just believed “it might be right” then Armaan Ahmed is not guilty of all of the charges he faces.
He suggested that Armaan Ahmed’s involvement extended to wanting to prevent violence to his family, rather than causing it.
Mr McKone said this happened within the context of Armaan Ahmed’s younger brother, Zulkernain Ahmed, informing him of “threats” made by Mr Divers.
Given the knowledge he had about Mr Divers’ “infamous family,” Armaan Ahmed became “concerned he would not be able to cope,” the barrister said.
“For Armaan Ahmed to be guilty of murder you must be sure that Armaan Ahmed actually intended to kill or cause really serious harm. Not just harm, but really serious harm.
“With really serious harm, this is a very high bar. This is something that most people would be incapable of doing.”
Mr McKone reminded jurors that Armaan Ahmed was not the driver, his brother Zulkernain was; and there is no evidence to suggest he told his brother to run anyone over.
“Conceivable” defendant had not seen bike riders prior to crash
He told the court that while the CCTV of the fatal collision was “important evidence,” it does have limitations, because you cannot see Armaan Ahmed until the three bike riders come into view.
“You can not see Armaan do or say anything,” Mr McKone said, adding: “He was in the back of the car with a lesser view of the incident than those in the front.”
Mr McKone suggested it was “conceivable” that the first collision, in which Mr Divers was hit, had taken place before Armaan Ahmed had even seen the riders.
Armaan Ahmed is said to have told the jury just that during his evidence to the jury earlier in the trial.
“Armaan, as a young person, is likely to be telling the truth when he says he was looking at his phone during the car journey,” said Mr McKone.
He argued that even if the jury were to agree with the prosecution case that all of the passengers of the car were “looking out” for Mr Divers and others, that in itself does not provide enough evidence to “safely conclude” that they were encouraging Zulkernain, the driver, to run Mr Divers over.
Mr McKone acknowledged that his client did things “after the collision that you could criticise him for,” - such as checking in at the Port of Dover and “trying to flee the country.”
He added, however: “We submit that Armaan Ahmed trying to flee the United Kingdom can not provide much help at all to what his intention was towards Divers that day.”
“The fact Armaan did not bring his passport, and had to go home to collect it, suggests the use of serious violence had not been planned with him.”
Presence in car does not suggest murderous intent, defence barrister suggests
Representing Adam Mohammed, John Ryder KC, suggested to the jury that his client was there in the dock, accused of murder and other serious offences, simply because he was in the car that caused the fatal collision.
Mr Ryder argued that Mohammed’s mere presence in the car has led the prosecution to view everything he did beforehand, “which essentially amounts to contact with the Ahmed brothers” as somehow connected to the planning of what was to happen.
He said an “open-minded” analysis of the evidence presented to the jury, including call records, shows that Mohammed exchanged a single call with the Ahmed brothers prior to Abdullah’s murder, and was in the car for just seven or eight minutes before the fatal crash.
Mr Ryder continued: “If you are asked to conclude that he is involved in the planning, in the steps that ultimately led to an unlawful death, then surely you would want something a little more substantial [in the] contact than one call [with the Ahmed brothers].”
He suggested that the “one call” exchanged between Mohammed and the Ahmed brothers, was no different to the calls or messages the brothers were sending around it.
Mr Ryder referred to an “infamous” video used in evidence said to feature the defendants Zulkernain and Armaan Ahmed, in which Zulkernain Ahmed allegedly says he is “gonna f*** up” the people he believes were responsible for the bike robbery.
In the video, Zulkernain Ahmed is also alleged to say he is “gonna crash through the S3.”
Mr Ryder suggested to the jury that Mohammed’s absence on the video is of significance.
“So where is Adam Mohammed when these rather angry comments are being made, his rather angry comments about what happened, and what is to be done about it?
“He’s not there…he’s not a member of the “yes the boys” Facebook chat group. The three brothers are members, not him. He [Adam Mohammed] is not party to that,” said Mr Ryder.
“If you had been deliberately involved...the last thing you would do is expose yourself by being at the scene”
Mr Ryder asked where Mohammed was in the plan, where was his “contribution” to the crashes, based on the evidence.
“It just doesn’t add up at all. One call, no pattern of calls consistent with planning.”
“It would be wrong to convict him of these gravely serious offences on the basis of a two-minute call, which stands alone, in this seam of messages and contact,” he said.
Mr Ryder suggested that had Mohammed been involved in the planning of an attack on Mr Divers and others that his “phone would have betrayed him - but he wasn’t.”
He described the events around the fatal crash as “arising completely spontaneously as Divers and others happen to be riding around at the end of the Ahmeds’ road.” Mr Ryder suggested that as the events leading up to the fatal incident were unfolding near the Ahmed family home, as the brothers allegedly got into Zulkernain Ahmed’s car armed with weapons including a stick, Mr Mohammed was “down at the barber’s shop.”
“He’s nowhere near Locke Drive or Acres Hill Road…the only way he could or would know is if he was present, which we know he wasn’t. So we know he wasn’t there, he’s not on the CCTV.”
“To tell him they [the Ahmed brothers] would obviously need to contact him. No-one calls him, not a single one of the Ahmeds makes a call to Adam Mohammed to say we’ve seen Divers and others.”
“Why didn’t they call him, say: ‘La’rome’s here, we’re after him, where are you?’”
Mr Ryder also suggested that Mohammed’s presence in the car for seven or eight minutes before it hit Abdullah should not be regarded as significant because it was commonplace for he and the Ahmed brothers to pass time “driving around aimlessly.”
The court heard how Mohammed returned to the fatal crash scene a short time afterwards, and also attended Abdullah’s funeral.
Addressing that aspect of Mohammed’s conduct, Mr Ryder told the jury: “If you had been deliberately involved in that, every instinct would prevent you from going back to the scene, every instinct would have prevented you from going to the funeral. It’s just not natural. It’s just not the way we - as a species - behave…the last thing you are going to do is expose yourself by being at the scene.”
The charges faced by the three defendants
All three defendants are charged with Abdullah’s murder. They also face three counts of attempted murder in relation to the three bike riders, along with the alternative, lesser charges of grievous bodily harm with intent over the injuries caused to Mr Divers, and attempted grievous bodily harm in relation to the other two, unidentified riders.
They have each pleaded not guilty to the charges.
Zulkernain Ahmed admitted charges of manslaughter and grievous bodily harm, and attempted grievous bodily harm, without intent, at an earlier hearing, but his pleas were rejected by prosecutors.
The trial continues.