Separation of Conspiracy to Murder and Conspiracy to Cause Grievous Bodily Harm with Intent: The Oni & Ors v R. Judgment

Introduction

The case of Oni & Ors v R. ([2025] EWCA Crim 12) adjudicated by the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) on January 15, 2025, presents a significant judicial examination of the legal distinctions and separations between conspiracies to commit murder and conspiracies to cause grievous bodily harm with intent. The appellants, including Mr. Oni, Mr. Ojo, Mr. Jitoboh, Mr. Thomas (Junior), Mr. Adedeji, Mr. Savi, and Mr. Okoya, were convicted of various conspiracy charges related to violent activities stemming from gang rivalries. This commentary delves into the intricacies of the judgment, analyzing the background, judicial reasoning, precedents, and the broader legal implications.

Summary of the Judgment

The appellants were convicted of conspiracy to murder and conspiracy to cause grievous bodily harm with intent, activities that were alleged to have occurred between November 4, 2020, and February 6, 2021. The Court of Appeal reviewed several grounds of appeal, focusing particularly on the trial judge's approach to handling separate conspiracies within a singular indictment and the admissibility of certain evidence, including identification through photographic evidence.

Key findings include:

The Court upheld the distinction between separate conspiracies to murder and to cause grievous bodily harm, emphasizing that overlapping conduct with different intentions should not be conflated into a single conspiracy charge.
The conviction of Mr. Adedeji was quashed due to unreliable identification evidence, while appeals against sentence for Mr. Savi and Mr. Okoya were allowed, resulting in reduced sentences.
No retrial was ordered for Mr. Adedeji despite the quashing of his conviction, considering the circumstances and the impact of the already served time.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively referenced various precedents and academic writings to underpin its decisions. Notable among these were:

R v Barnard (1980) 70 Cr App R 28 – Highlighted the necessity of distinguishing between separate conspiracies especially when they involve different offenses.
R v Saik [2006] UKHL 18 – Emphasized that the conspiracy is complete once the agreement is made, irrespective of whether it is carried out.
R v Crothers NICA [2000] 2158 CARC 3285 – Allowed convicting of lesser offenses within a broader conspiracy based on the intent to commit more severe crimes.
R v Meyrick and Ribuffi (1930) 21 Cr App R 94 – Introduced the concepts of "wheel" and "chain" conspiracies, which remain relevant in understanding complex conspiratorial agreements.
R v Shillam [2013] EWCA Crim 160 – Discussed the procedural intricacies and limitations in adjudicating conspiracy charges.

These precedents collectively supported the Court's stance on maintaining clear boundaries between separate conspiracy charges, ensuring that each is treated on its individual merits and intentions.

Legal Reasoning

The core legal contention was whether the trial court erred in treating two distinct conspiracy intents—murder and grievous bodily harm—as a single conspiracy. The Court of Appeal articulated that:

Separation of Conspiracies: Conspiracies should be distinctly charged based on the specific criminal intents involved. Even if the actions overlap, differing intentions (e.g., to kill vs. to cause grievous bodily harm) necessitate separate conspiracy charges.
Admissibility of Evidence: While acts and statements made in furtherance of one conspiracy can be admissible in supporting charges of that specific conspiracy, they should not be cross-applied to another, especially when the intents diverge.
Identification Evidence: The misidentification of Mr. Adedeji in a video clip by a police officer was deemed substantial enough to render his conviction unsafe, especially with fresh evidence casting doubt on the reliability of the identification.

Furthermore, the Court emphasized the importance of jury directions that accurately reflect the separate nature of multiple conspiracy charges, ensuring that the evidence pertinent to one does not unduly influence the verdicts pertaining to another.

Impact

This judgment carries significant implications for future conspiracy cases, particularly in scenarios involving multiple concurrent criminal intents. Key impacts include:

Clarity in Indictments: Prosecutors must meticulously distinguish between different conspiracy charges within indictments, ensuring that each charge reflects a unique criminal intention.
Jury Directions: Judges must provide clear and precise instructions to juries when dealing with multiple conspiracy charges, delineating the boundaries between separate conspiratorial intents.
Evidence Handling: The admissibility of evidence must be carefully scrutinized to ensure it is pertinent only to the specific conspiracy charge it is intended to support, preventing cross-admission that could prejudice verdicts.
Identification Procedures: Law enforcement and prosecutorial practices regarding identification must be robust to prevent wrongful convictions based on unreliable or insufficient identification methods.

Overall, the judgment reinforces the necessity for legal precision in handling complex conspiratorial cases, safeguarding the fairness and integrity of the judicial process.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Conspiracy to Commit an Offense

A conspiracy to commit an offense involves an agreement between two or more persons to pursue a course of conduct that would result in the commission of one or more crimes. It is important to note that the mere agreement constitutes the offense, regardless of whether the intended crime is actually carried out.

Separate Conspiracies with Overlapping Conduct

When individuals engage in actions that serve multiple criminal intents—such as planning both murder and causing grievous bodily harm—it is crucial to treat each intent as a separate conspiracy. Even if the actions overlap, the differing intentions mandate distinct charges to accurately reflect each criminal purpose.

Wheel and Chain Conspiracies

Wheel and chain conspiracies refer to complex conspiratorial agreements where not all parties directly communicate with each other. In a wheel conspiracy, there's a central figure connected to various other conspirators who may not be directly linked to one another, whereas in a chain conspiracy, each conspirator is linked sequentially.

Admissibility of Evidence in Conspiracy Cases

In conspiracy cases, evidence pertaining to one conspiracy cannot be used to imply involvement in another conspiracy unless the evidence is directly relevant and pertains to the specific intent of that conspiracy. This prevents the misuse of evidence to unfairly impact defendants accused of different conspiratorial intents.

Safe Convictions

A conviction is deemed 'safe' if it is so reliable that there is no real possibility of a miscarriage of justice. Factors ensuring safety include the credibility of evidence, proper handling of identification procedures, and accurate jury instructions.

Conclusion

The Oni & Ors v R. judgment underscores the paramount importance of distinguishing between separate conspiratorial intents within a singular course of conduct. By meticulously analyzing and upholding the separation between conspiracy to murder and conspiracy to cause grievous bodily harm with intent, the Court of Appeal has reinforced the integrity of legal processes in complex criminal cases.

This judgment not only rectifies specific errors in the handling of evidence and jury instructions but also sets a clear precedent for future prosecutions involving multiple overlapping conspiracies. Legal practitioners must heed the detailed directives concerning the separation of conspiracy charges and the careful admissibility of evidence to ensure just and accurate verdicts. Ultimately, this case serves as a pivotal reference point in the evolution of conspiracy law, promoting fairness and precision within the criminal justice system.