R v Synnott & Ors

Factual and Procedural Background

These cases concern appeals against conviction by three appellants: Appellant 1, Appellant 2, and Appellant 3, following a trial at the Crown Court at Manchester Minshull Street in 2003 before Poole J and a jury. The trial lasted approximately 10 weeks. Appellant 3 was convicted of conspiracy to murder on 15 April 2003, and Appellants 1 and 2 were convicted of the same charge the following day. Each was sentenced to life imprisonment with minimum terms before parole consideration, with Appellant 2’s minimum term later reduced on appeal.

Prior to these appeals, Appellant 3 had a renewed application for leave to appeal refused in 2004, Appellant 2 had not previously applied for leave, and Appellant 1 was granted leave to appeal with an extension of time in 2010. The appellants were among five co-accused in the original trial, with others convicted or acquitted on related charges involving conspiracy to possess firearms and conspiracy to transfer firearms.

The underlying facts involve the murder of Mr. R, who was shot dead in his home by masked intruders on 18 January 2001. The appellants had alibis for the time of the murder. The prosecution alleged the murder was the culmination of a turf war between rival drug factions controlled by Mr. R and associates, and the appellants and their associates. The Crown’s case was that the appellants conspired to murder Mr. R to remove a threat to their drug operations.

Following the first trial, two further trials arose out of the same facts but involved different defendants and evidence. These subsequent trials resulted in juries unable to reach verdicts and eventual acquittals after the Crown offered no evidence.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the fresh evidence, principally from witness KE, which contradicted key evidence from witness GF at the original trial, undermined the safety of the appellants’ convictions.
2. Whether the court should admit the fresh evidence pursuant to section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 and assess its impact on the safety of the convictions.
3. Whether the convictions of the appellants were safe in light of the evidence as a whole, including the fresh evidence.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellants' Arguments

• The appellants, represented principally by Attorney McGowan QC, argued that the Crown’s case in the second and third trials, relying on KE’s evidence, was materially different and inconsistent with the first trial’s reliance on GF’s evidence.
• They contended that KE’s evidence contradicted GF’s evidence on crucial matters such as the source and disposal of the murder weapon, undermining GF’s credibility and thus the safety of the convictions.
• They submitted that KE’s evidence constituted fresh evidence under section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 and should be admitted.
• They argued that KE’s evidence, accepted as credible by the Crown, provided grounds for allowing the appeals as it fundamentally challenged the convictions.
• It was further submitted that the court must assess KE’s evidence and its effect on the convictions to determine whether they were unsafe.

Appellant 2's Arguments

• Attorney George QC, representing Appellant 2, argued there was little evidence apart from GF’s against Appellant 2 and that KE’s evidence did not implicate Appellant 2 significantly.
• He noted that KE was not cross-examined regarding Appellant 2’s involvement, which should be considered when assessing the safety of Appellant 2’s conviction.

Crown's Arguments

• The Crown, represented by Attorney Garside QC, submitted that inconsistencies between GF and KE’s evidence did not go to the heart of the Crown’s case against the appellants.
• The Crown maintained that the appellants were the originators of the plan to murder Mr. R, supported by evidence of meetings, telephone contacts, and the ongoing turf war.
• The Crown argued there was powerful evidence against Appellant 2, including involvement in violent incidents, telephone records, alibis, and lies in interviews.
• The Crown emphasized that the question for the jury was whether the appellants were parties to the conspiracy to murder, not a lesser offence.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court first established that the appeals were to be treated as fresh evidence cases, as success depended on admitting and considering KE’s evidence. The Crown did not oppose admission, and the court found it expedient in the interests of justice to receive it under section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968.

The court acknowledged the existence of a conspiracy to murder Mr. R involving several individuals, including the appellants. The critical issue was whether the convictions of the appellants were safe given the fresh evidence.

The court assessed the credibility of witnesses KE and GF, noting both had potential motives affecting their evidence. KE was an insider and self-confessed conspirator, while GF was a confidante with second-hand knowledge. The court adopted a stance of healthy scepticism towards both, seeking corroboration from other evidence.

The court identified inconsistencies between KE and GF regarding the source and disposal of the murder weapon. However, it rejected the argument that these inconsistencies fatally undermined GF’s entire evidence. Both witnesses agreed a 9 mm gun was obtained for the conspiracy, though GF was unaware it was for murder.

The court found KE’s evidence of a 12 January 2001 meeting where the murder plan was finalized, supported by other evidence including telephone records and post-murder alibi arrangements described by GF, to be compelling.

The court considered the totality of evidence, including the escalating violence, cell-site data, alibis, and admissions, and found the evidence against the appellants, including Appellant 2 despite more circumstantial evidence, to be strong and consistent with guilt.

Ultimately, the court concluded that the fresh evidence would have added weight against the appellants rather than undermining the safety of their convictions.

Holding and Implications

The court DISMISSED ALL THREE APPEALS.

The direct effect of this decision is that the convictions and sentences of the appellants are upheld as safe. The court found no basis to overturn the original verdicts despite the fresh evidence. No new precedent was established beyond the application of established principles governing fresh evidence and safety of convictions.