Introduction

The case of Seed & Others v R [2024] EWCA Crim 650 presents a pivotal judgment from the England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) that delves into the realm of joint criminal liability within the context of gang-related violence. The appellants—Seed, Mensah, and Yussuf—were convicted of conspiracy to cause grievous bodily harm with intent, murder, and possessing firearms with intent to endanger life, following a lethal shootout between rival gangs in Brent. The central issue revolves around the establishment of a shared common purpose to inflict violence and the subsequent criminal accountability of each participant in the incident.

Summary of the Judgment

The appellants were initially convicted by the Central Criminal Court for their involvement in a deadly confrontation between two rival gang factions, identified by their "colours"—the blues and the reds. The prosecution established that the defendants entered the Stonebridge Estate with the intent to cause serious harm, armed with a loaded Baikal pistol. A violent exchange ensued, resulting in the death of Billy McCullagh and injuries to Seed. The Court of Appeal upheld the convictions, affirming that the evidence sufficiently demonstrated a mutual agreement among the defendants to engage in a violent confrontation, thereby establishing joint criminal liability.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively references key legal precedents that shape the doctrine of joint criminal liability:

• R v Gnango [2011] UKSC 59: Established that an agreement to commit joint wrongdoing requires a shared common purpose between the parties.
• R v Jogee [2016] UKSC 8: Refined the principles from Gnango, emphasizing the importance of proving that the prosecution demonstrates beyond reasonable doubt the intent and agreement among participants.
• R v Morgan [2021] EWCA Crim 895: Applied the Gnango and Jogee principles to argue against conditional extensions of joint liability.
• R v Galbraith [1981] 1 WLR 1039: Discussed the sufficiency of evidence required to sustain convictions based on joint activity.
• R v Cookson and Eaton [2023] EWCA Crim 10; R v Kamarra-Jarra [2024] EWCA Crim 198; and R v Sesay (Yousif) [2024] EWCA Crim 483: Highlighted the necessity of deducting appropriate remand periods from minimum sentences in life imprisonment cases.

Legal Reasoning

The Court of Appeal meticulously applied the established legal framework to the facts of the case. Central to the court’s reasoning was the inference of a mutual common purpose among the appellants to engage in a violent shootout. The judgment underscored that:

• Participation in the Land Rover with a loaded firearm indicated joint possession and a shared intent to cause harm.
• The historical context of ongoing gang rivalry provided a background that supported the inference of a predetermined mutual intent.
• The expert testimony and eyewitness accounts corroborated the sequence of events that aligned with an orchestrated violent intent rather than spontaneous self-defense.

The court also addressed the admissibility of previous convictions, determining that they were relevant and not prejudicial under the specific circumstances of this case. Additionally, rulings on evidence pertaining to a music video and a video on Farah’s phone were justified as relevant to establishing gang affiliation and intent.

Impact

This judgment reinforces the principles established in Gnango and Jogee, particularly in the context of organized gang violence. By affirming that a shared common purpose to engage in unlawful violence can establish joint liability irrespective of who initiated the violence or the side to which the victim belonged, the judgment broadens the applicability of joint criminal responsibility. This has significant implications for future cases involving group dynamics and premeditated violence, ensuring that all participants in such conflicts can be held accountable for collective intent and actions.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Joint Criminal Liability

Joint criminal liability refers to the legal doctrine under which multiple individuals can be held responsible for a crime based on their collective action and shared intent. In this case, the court determined that the appellants acted with a common purpose to engage in violence, thereby making each participant criminally liable for the outcomes of their collective actions.

Common Purpose

The concept of common purpose involves an explicit agreement or a shared intention among individuals to pursue a particular criminal objective. Here, the court inferred that by traveling together in a vehicle armed with firearms, the defendants collectively agreed to engage in a violent confrontation.

Hearsay Evidence

Hearsay evidence involves statements made outside the court that are presented to prove the truth of the matter asserted. The court addressed concerns regarding the admissibility of a music video’s lyrics and a video on Farah's phone, ultimately determining that they were not hearsay or were relevant to establishing gang affiliation and intent rather than the factual recounting of events.

Conclusion

The Seed & Ors v R [2024] EWCA Crim 650 judgment is a landmark decision that elucidates the boundaries and applications of joint criminal liability within the criminal law framework. By affirming that a shared intent to engage in unlawful violence can establish joint responsibility, the court has provided clear guidance for future prosecutions involving group-based criminal activities. Additionally, the judgment underscores the importance of nuanced legal reasoning in determining the admissibility of various forms of evidence and ensures that procedural fairness is maintained in the adjudication process. Overall, this case reinforces the judiciary's commitment to addressing organized criminal behavior with robust legal mechanisms, thereby enhancing public safety and upholding the rule of law.