Awoyemi & Ors v REGINA

Factual and Procedural Background

Three appellants were convicted at Basildon Crown Court in March 2014 of offences including possession of firearms with intent to endanger life and attempted murder, following incidents in January 2013 involving shootings linked to gang violence. The appellants lived in an area associated with the "DAG" gang. On 4 January 2013, two cars belonging to or associated with the appellants were driven in convoy into the territory of a rival gang, the "Beckton Boys," where shots were fired through a door injuring a victim who survived. A further incident on 19 January involved the appellants returning armed with a loaded shotgun, leading to a police chase and the recovery of the weapon. Evidence including cell site data, phone calls, and videos was used to connect the appellants to the shootings and the gang culture.

The appellants appealed their convictions primarily on the admissibility of evidence related to their gang affiliation and the adequacy of the trial judge's directions on such evidence. Other grounds had been previously abandoned or rejected.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether evidence of the appellants' gang affiliation was admissible as bad character evidence under the Criminal Justice Act 2003.
2. Whether the trial judge's directions to the jury regarding the gang affiliation evidence were adequate and fair.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant Toto's Arguments

• Conceded that gang membership evidence may be admissible if it relates to the facts of the offence or as bad character evidence under the Criminal Justice Act 2003.
• Contended the evidence was not relevant to an important issue because there was insufficient proof that the shooting or possession of the gun were gang-related.
• Argued there was no proven hostility or rivalry between the DAG gang and the Beckton Boys to justify the evidence's relevance.
• Criticized the trial judge for failing to properly consider the prejudicial effect of the gang evidence on the fairness of the trial as required by statute.
• Maintained that the judge's directions to the jury on bad character evidence were inadequate, rendering the convictions unsafe.

Appellant Awoyemi's Arguments

• Challenged the admission of bad character evidence on the grounds that it led to prejudicial material being introduced, such as unrelated charges and remand in custody.
• Argued the evidence was weak to establish his gang membership and that there was no evidence of his personal involvement in gang violence.
• Rejected the Crown's assertion that he was closely associated with gang culture, noting he did not appear in the gang-related video admitted at trial.

Appellant Thomas's Arguments

• Adopted the submissions of the other appellants regarding the principles for admitting gang affiliation evidence.
• Contended that gang evidence was only relevant if the shooting was gang-related and if he was a gang member who participated in gang violence, which was not established.
• Argued the evidence was prejudicial and lacked probative value concerning his presence and participation in the shooting.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court examined the admissibility of gang affiliation evidence under sections 98 and 101 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, focusing on whether the evidence was relevant to an important matter in issue and whether its admission was fair. The court found that the shooting incidents bore the hallmarks of gang-related violence, including the use of convoy vehicles, firearms, and gang-related attire. The gang affiliation evidence linked the appellants to a gang culture that glorified violence and firearms, providing possible motive and negating innocent explanations for their presence.

The court rejected arguments that the evidence was irrelevant due to lack of proven hostility between the gangs, noting that gang rivalries need not be explicitly documented to be relevant. The expertise of the gang expert witness was accepted, and the court declined to entertain late challenges to that expertise.

While acknowledging the prejudicial nature of gang evidence, particularly in relation to Awoyemi, the court found that the evidence was not unduly prejudicial given the context and that the defence had opportunities to object but did not. The court also concluded that the trial judge gave sufficient and appropriately tailored directions to the jury on how to consider the gang affiliation evidence, in line with established guidance.

Holding and Implications

DISMISSED - The appeals against conviction were dismissed.

The court upheld the admissibility of gang affiliation evidence as relevant and probative in the context of these offences. It confirmed that such evidence can be admitted when it provides a link to motive, association with firearms, and involvement in lethal violence, even where explicit inter-gang hostility is not directly proven. The court emphasized the importance of tailored jury directions to mitigate prejudice. No new precedent was established; rather, the court reaffirmed existing principles and the careful approach required in admitting and directing on gang evidence.