Multi-Strand Circumstantial Evidence and the Safety of Conviction: Almallah v R [2025] EWCA Crim 433

Introduction

Almallah v R ([2025] EWCA Crim 433) is a pivotal decision of the England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) delivered on 28 March 2025. The applicant, Elias Almallah, was convicted by a jury of murdering Kyron Lee during a coordinated attack in Slough in October 2022. Sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 22 years and nine months, Almallah challenged his conviction on two principal grounds: (1) that the circumstantial evidence was too weak to sustain a conviction (the “no-case” submission under R v Galbraith) and (2) that the trial judge misdirected the jury by suggesting no evidence contradicted the Crown’s case. The Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal, reaffirming established principles on the assessment of circumstantial evidence and the role of the jury.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court of Appeal, led by Warby LJ, dismissed the renewed application for leave to appeal. On the first ground, the court held that although individual strands of evidence (CCTV, phone records, fingerprint in the getaway car boot, post-offence flight plans) had their limitations, taken as a whole they were more than adequate for a properly directed jury to convict. The judge applied the Galbraith test correctly in ruling that there was a case for the jury. On the second ground, the court found no misdirection: the judge’s references to the absence of contradictory evidence were standard directions on defendant silence and expert evidence, did not mislead the jury, and fell within the judge’s summing-up discretion.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

• R v Galbraith [1981] 1 WLR 1039
  Establishes the two-limb test for no-case submissions: (a) whether there is any evidence on which a jury properly directed could convict, and (b) whether that evidence is such that it is incapable in law of supporting a conviction. The court reaffirmed that withdrawal of a case at the first stage is rare and that credibility and weight are jury matters.
• Standard directions on defendant’s silence and expert evidence—though not cited to specific appellate authorities, these directions follow established templates and have been repeatedly endorsed by the courts.

2. Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning unfolds in two parts:

1. No-Case Submission: The court emphasized that in circumstantial cases, a “totality” approach applies. Even if each strand (height comparison, gait analysis, phone-call patterns, joint activities before and after the offence, fingerprint evidence) might be vulnerable when isolated, they cumulatively yielded a compelling case that Almallah was “the yellow man” who stabbed the victim. The court rejected the suggestion that any single weakness in the evidence mandated removal from the jury. It underscored the rarity of appellate intervention at the prima facie stage.
2. Alleged Misdirection: Two passages in the summing-up referring to the absence of “contradictory evidence” were scrutinized. First, the judge’s direction on silence correctly reminded the jury that no evidence from the defendants themselves contradicted the Crown case. Second, a comment that expert evidence was “largely unchallenged” was defended as fair—no contemporaneous objection was taken and the judge accurately summarized the scope and challenges to cell-site analysis. The court held these directions were legally sound and would not have misled a reasonable jury.

3. Impact

Almallah v R will serve as a clear authority that:

• Appellate courts will rarely disturb a trial judge’s decision to leave circumstantial evidence to a jury, provided the judge applies the Galbraith principles correctly.
• The cumulative strength of multiple strands—even if none is individually definitive—can sustain a safe conviction.
• Standard jury directions on defendant silence and expert evidence are robust against challenge when given accurately and fairly.

Lower courts will look to this decision for reassurance that complex pattern evidence (phone data, CCTV, post-offence conduct) is properly assessed at trial rather than excluded at the summing-up stage.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• No-Case Submission (Galbraith Test): After the prosecution closes, the defence can ask the judge to rule that there is “no case to answer.” This succeeds only if there is literally no evidence on which any reasonable jury could convict, or that evidence is legally inadmissible or so weak no conviction could be safe.
• Circumstantial Evidence: Indirect evidence that requires inference (e.g., patterns of phone calls, locations on CCTV, flight bookings) rather than direct eyewitness identification.
• Joint Enterprise: A legal doctrine by which each participant in a group crime can be held liable for the actions of the others if they share a common purpose to commit the crime or serious harm.
• Cell-Site Analysis: Expert evidence mapping an accused’s approximate location based on mobile-phone communication with cell towers.
• Defendant Silence: A defendant’s choice not to give evidence cannot be treated as an admission of guilt—but a judge can direct that the jury must convict only on the Crown’s evidence and note that no defence testimony contradicted it.

Conclusion

Almallah v R [2025] EWCA Crim 433 reaffirms that multi-strand circumstantial evidence—when properly directed—can safely support an identification-based murder conviction. The decision underscores the high threshold for withdrawing a case from the jury under Galbraith and confirms that routine directions on silence and expert evidence, even when noting limited defence contradiction, do not give rise to appealable misdirection. This judgment will guide trial judges in balancing the exclusion of weak evidence with respect for the jury’s role in assessing credibility and weight.