Stewart v REGINA

Factual and Procedural Background

On 7 October 2014, at the Central Criminal Court, the Appellant was convicted after a retrial of possessing a firearm with intent to endanger life contrary to section 16 of the Firearms Act 1968 (Count 1). The Appellant was acquitted of possessing ammunition with intent to endanger life (Count 3). Earlier, on 7 April 2014, at the Crown Court at Inner London, the Appellant pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm without authority (a lesser alternative to Count 1) and to simple possession of cannabis (Count 4). An initial trial in May 2014 was aborted.

On 30 January 2015, the Appellant was sentenced to 11 years’ detention in a Young Offenders' Institution on Count 1. No separate penalty was imposed on Count 4, and the possession without authority charge was ordered to lie on the file. The Appellant appeals against conviction with limited leave and against sentence with leave of a single judge.

The facts concern the Appellant, aged 19 at the time, travelling as the sole passenger in a minicab in South London on 10 January 2014. The minicab was stopped by police, and the Appellant was found carrying a concealed sawn-off shotgun and ammunition. The prosecution alleged the firearm was connected to gang violence, relying on evidence of the Appellant’s gang association, a prior violent attack against him, and images from his phone indicating an interest in firearms beyond mere courier activity. The Appellant denied intent, claiming he was only a courier unaware of gang affiliations. The Appellant did not give evidence or call witnesses at trial.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the gang-related evidence admitted at trial was properly characterised as evidence “to do with the alleged facts of the offence” under section 98 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (CJA 2003), rather than as bad character evidence under section 101 of the CJA 2003.
2. If the evidence was admissible as bad character evidence under section 101(1)(d) of the CJA 2003, whether the trial judge erred in failing to give the jury a bad character direction regarding that evidence.
3. Whether the Appellant’s conviction was unsafe given the admission of the gang-related evidence.
4. Whether the sentence of 11 years’ detention was manifestly excessive, particularly in light of the acquittal on Count 3 and the Appellant’s characterisation as a “courier plus.”

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The trial judge erred in admitting the gang-related evidence as evidence “to do with the facts of the case” under section 98, rather than treating it as bad character evidence under section 101.
• If the evidence was admitted as bad character evidence, the judge should have given a specific bad character direction to the jury, which was not done.
• The admission of the bad character evidence caused prejudice rendering the conviction unsafe.
• The sentence was excessive and the judge failed to give cogent reasons for rejecting mitigation that the Appellant was a “courier plus.”

Respondent's Arguments

• The gang-related evidence was properly admitted as evidence “to do with the alleged facts,” as it was directly relevant to the Appellant’s intent and motive.
• The trial judge was not required to give a bad character direction as the evidence was admitted under section 98, not section 101.
• The absence of a bad character direction did not render the conviction unsafe given the straightforward nature of the case and the limited possible explanations for possession of the firearm.
• The sentence was appropriate given the Appellant’s prior convictions, the nature of the firearm, and the gang-related context of the offence.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court carefully examined the nature of the gang-related evidence and its admissibility under the Criminal Justice Act 2003. It agreed with the trial judge’s characterisation that the evidence was “to do with the alleged facts of the offence” under section 98, as it went directly to the Appellant’s intent and motive, which are essential elements of the offence charged.

The court considered the statutory provisions distinguishing evidence “to do with the facts” from bad character evidence and noted that evidence admitted under section 98 does not require the same procedural gateways as bad character evidence under section 101. It rejected the Appellant’s argument that the evidence should have been treated as bad character evidence and that a bad character direction was necessary.

Relying on established case law, including R v Sule and Lunkulu, the court held that evidence of gang disputes and related violence is admissible as part of the facts of the case when it is intrinsic to the prosecution’s case and relevant to motive and intent.

The court analysed the sufficiency and relevance of the evidence, including the firearm’s altered condition, the Appellant’s gang associations, prior attacks on him, and images on his phone, concluding these provided a proper evidential basis for inferring intent to endanger life.

Regarding jury directions, the court found that the trial judge’s instructions were appropriate and tailored to the evidence admitted as fact-related. The absence of a bad character direction did not render the conviction unsafe given the straightforward nature of the case and limited possible explanations for the Appellant’s conduct.

On sentencing, the court found the judge’s reasoning well-founded. The sentence reflected the seriousness of the offence, the Appellant’s prior convictions, and the gang-related context. The judge was entitled to reject mitigation characterising the Appellant as a “courier plus” without further elaboration.

Holding and Implications

The court DISMISSED the appeal against conviction and the appeal against sentence.

The direct effect is that the Appellant’s conviction and 11-year sentence for possession of a firearm with intent to endanger life are upheld. No new legal precedent was established beyond reaffirming existing principles on the admissibility of gang-related evidence under section 98 of the CJA 2003 and sentencing considerations in firearm offences involving gang context.