Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively engages with several key legal precedents that shape the landscape of joint enterprise and appellate review:

• R v Jogee [2016] UKSC 8: This Supreme Court decision fundamentally altered the approach to joint enterprise, rejecting the notion that foresight of a crime's possibility equates to intent. Instead, it clarified that foresight should be treated as evidence of intent but not as conclusive proof.
• R v Johnson [2016] EWCA Crim 1613 and R v Crilly [2018] EWCA Crim 168: These cases further articulated the stringent criteria for establishing substantial injustice in the context of joint enterprise appeals, reinforcing the high threshold for overturning convictions.
• R v Kilbourne [1973] AC 729: Referenced regarding the adequacy of circumstantial evidence directions, ensuring that juries are properly instructed to consider and eliminate alternative explanations.
• R v Grant-Murray and others [2017] EWCA Crim 1228: Cited in the context of evaluating fresh evidence and its relevance to the issues at trial, particularly concerning cognitive disabilities.

Legal Reasoning

The Court of Appeal's reasoning was multifaceted, addressing each ground of appeal with precision:

• Joint Enterprise Directions: The court upheld the trial judge's directions, asserting they were accurate under existing law. It emphasized that the directions sufficiently clarified the necessity of shared intent and the roles of each defendant, aligning with the principles established in Jogee.
• Substantial Injustice Threshold: Ennis failed to demonstrate that denying his appeal would result in substantial injustice. The court highlighted that the evidence against him was robust and that the charges did not hinge solely on the foreseeability aspect altered by Jogee.
• Fresh Evidence Applications: The attempted introduction of psychological reports post-trial was scrutinized. The court determined that the evidence did not meet the stringent criteria set out in the Criminal Appeal Act 1968, particularly failing to establish that the evidence could afford grounds for allowing the appeal.
• Adverse Inference from Silence: The court maintained that the trial judge was justified in directing an adverse inference from Ennis's silence, given the context and his inconsistent statements.
• Rap Music and Bandanas as Evidence: The inclusion of the rap video and bandanas was deemed relevant and admissible, as they were directly connected to the facts of the offense. The court dismissed arguments that such evidence was racially biased, emphasizing its specific relevance to the case.

Impact

This judgment reinforces the stringent standards appellate courts apply when considering appeals related to joint enterprise, especially after the transformative Jogee decision. It underscores the necessity for appellants to meet a high threshold of demonstrating substantial injustice, ensuring that only cases with clear miscarriages of justice are reconsidered. Additionally, the affirmation of the admissibility of contextual evidence such as rap music in trials sets a precedent for its continued use, provided its relevance to the case is clear.

Moreover, the judgment highlights the court's cautious approach to extending time for appeals, particularly when significant delays are evident without compelling justification. This serves to maintain judicial efficiency and uphold the finality of convictions, barring exceptional circumstances.