THE QUEEN v Sule

Factual and Procedural Background

On 18th October 2011 at the Central Criminal Crown Court, before His Honour Judge Thornton, the Applicant was convicted by a majority of 10 to 2 of the murder of a victim referred to as the Deceased. The Applicant was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 28 years less time spent on remand. There were four co-defendants: one was also convicted of murder, one was acquitted, and the jury did not reach verdicts for the remaining two.

The murder occurred at approximately midnight on 23 June 2010, when the Deceased was shot execution-style in his car in a location referred to as Oslac Road, Catford SE6. The Deceased's wife was present in the car and witnessed the shooting.

The prosecution case was that the Deceased was mistaken for a man named Perry Walters, and that the murder was part of a feud involving the Applicant and a co-accused. The prosecution alleged a series of three prior shooting incidents linked to this feud, which formed the backdrop and motive for the murder. These incidents involved exchanges of gunfire and shootings attributed to retaliatory acts between the parties involved.

On 11 May 2012, after hearing submissions from the Applicant's counsel, the court refused the Applicant's renewed application for leave to appeal against his murder conviction and indicated that reasons for the refusal would be provided later.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the evidence of three prior shooting incidents was admissible as evidence "to do with" the alleged offence under section 98 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, or whether it constituted inadmissible bad character evidence.
2. Whether the acquittal of a co-defendant on the basis that the intended victim was not the man named Perry Walters rendered the evidence of prior incidents irrelevant and prejudicial, and whether the acquittal was inconsistent with the Applicant's conviction.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The three prior shooting incidents constituted inadmissible bad character evidence because they were too distant in time from the murder to be relevant under section 98(a) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.
• The evidence was not important explanatory evidence or relevant to a key issue between the Applicant and the prosecution under sections 101(1)(c), 101(1)(d), and 102.
• The prior incidents were evidence of bad character of the Applicant and others, including non-defendants, and did not satisfy the requirements of section 100.
• The acquittal of a co-defendant suggested the jury did not accept that the intended victim was Perry Walters, making the prior incidents irrelevant and prejudicial.
• The acquittal was inconsistent with the Applicant’s conviction.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
McNeill [2007] EWCA Crim 2927	Requirement of temporal proximity for bad character evidence to be "to do with" the alleged offence.	The court found McNeill inapplicable because the case involved a threat made after the offence, whereas the present evidence related to motive and was intrinsic to the prosecution’s case.
Tirnaveaunu [2007] EWCA Crim 1239; [2007] 2 Cr App R 23	Temporal proximity and overlap between evidence "to do with" the offence and important explanatory evidence under section 101(1)(c).	The court held that the reasoning in Tirnaveaunu did not apply here, as the evidence was relied on to show motive, and there was no temporal requirement in section 98.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analyzed the admissibility of the three prior shooting incidents as evidence "to do with" the offence under section 98 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The judge below had ruled that the evidence was highly relevant and intrinsic to the prosecution’s case, as it established the motive and context for the murder.

The court rejected the Applicant’s submission that a temporal nexus was required between the prior incidents and the murder. It distinguished the cited precedents, McNeill and Tirnaveaunu, noting that those cases involved bad character evidence that was not relied upon to show motive but rather propensity or subsequent conduct.

The court emphasized that section 98 contains no explicit temporal limitation and that evidence establishing motive may logically include earlier incidents occurring over a period of months. The court illustrated that requiring temporal proximity in such circumstances would be irrational.

The court further reasoned that the prior incidents formed a pattern of retaliatory violence ("tit for tat") and were intrinsically linked to the index offence. Even if a temporal requirement were to exist, the incidents fell within a three-month period, satisfying any such requirement.

Regarding the acquittal of a co-defendant, the court found no necessary inconsistency with the Applicant’s conviction. The jury’s verdict on the co-defendant could be explained by uncertainty about that co-defendant’s knowledge or intent rather than the identity of the intended victim.

Consequently, the court upheld the trial judge’s ruling and refused leave to appeal.

Holding and Implications

REFUSED LEAVE TO APPEAL.

The court’s decision directly upheld the Applicant’s conviction and affirmed the admissibility of the prior incidents as evidence relevant to motive under section 98 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. No new precedent was established beyond the application of existing principles to the facts. The acquittal of a co-defendant was held not to undermine the Applicant’s conviction.