BM & Anor, R v

Factual and Procedural Background

On 13th August 1994, in the Somers Town area of north London, a group of approximately ten young Asian males set out from Euston to find a youth named LC, allegedly to cause him grievous bodily harm following a prior dispute. Two appellants, referred to as BM and SA, were charged in connection with violent disorder, conspiracy to inflict grievous bodily harm, and murder arising from these events. At trial on 31st October 1995 at the Central Criminal Court, both appellants were convicted of violent disorder; BM was also convicted of conspiracy to inflict grievous bodily harm and murder, while SA was acquitted of conspiracy. The prosecution alleged that the gang attacked several youths, including MA, who suffered minor injuries, and RE, who was fatally stabbed. BM was implicated in the stabbing as part of a joint enterprise, though not necessarily as the knife wielder. Both appellants appealed their convictions by leave of a single judge.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether BM should have been tried on both the conspiracy charge and the substantive murder charge without the prosecution being required to elect one charge due to potential prejudice.
2. Whether the trial judge erred in not giving a further lies direction relating to BM's evidence about his whereabouts.
3. Whether the trial judge's direction on the relevance of good character evidence was adequate.
4. Whether the judge's direction on joint enterprise and intent in relation to the murder charge was correct, particularly in light of an outstanding House of Lords appeal concerning the necessary mens rea for secondary parties.
5. Whether the trial judge misrepresented the identification evidence against SA and failed to properly direct the jury on the alibi defence.
6. Whether SA's sentence for violent disorder was manifestly excessive or wrong in principle.
7. Whether an investigation into alleged juror misconduct or irregularities should be ordered based on post-trial statements.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellants' Arguments

• BM contended that he should not have faced trial on both conspiracy and murder charges simultaneously due to risk of prejudice and jury confusion.
• BM argued that a further lies direction was necessary regarding his account of his whereabouts before the stabbing incident.
• Both appellants challenged the trial judge's use of the term "entitled" rather than "must" when directing the jury on the relevance of good character evidence, asserting that the jury was bound to consider such evidence.
• BM's counsel requested certification of a point of law concerning whether a secondary party to murder must have the same intent as the primary party, pending the House of Lords decision in a related case.
• SA challenged the trial judge's handling of the identification evidence, alleging misrepresentation and insufficient attention to inconsistencies and weaknesses in the witnesses' testimony.
• SA sought leave to appeal his sentence, arguing the jury's verdict on the conspiracy count undermined the basis for his knowledge of the knife use, and highlighting mitigating factors including his good character.
• Appellants sought an adjournment and investigation into alleged juror misconduct based on statements from a juror's partner, asserting possible improper jury conduct affecting the verdict.

Prosecution's Arguments

• The prosecution maintained that the joinder of conspiracy and substantive charges was justified as they related to distinct aspects of the criminal conduct that evening.
• They argued no further lies direction was necessary as the alleged lies were not central to the prosecution's case and did not form a basis for guilt.
• The prosecution contended the trial judge properly directed the jury regarding good character evidence and identification evidence in accordance with established case law.
• They opposed any adjournment or investigation into juror misconduct, highlighting the late emergence and questionable authenticity of the statements, and emphasizing statutory prohibitions on inquiry into jury deliberations under the Contempt of Court Act 1981.
• The prosecution submitted that SA's sentence was appropriate given the seriousness of the violent disorder and his knowledge of the knife possession within the gang.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court began by addressing the procedural request to investigate alleged juror misconduct based on statements received post-trial. It held that while the Contempt of Court Act 1981 prohibits inquiry into jury deliberations, the court's longstanding principle is to protect jury secrecy and finality of verdicts. The evidence presented was unsubstantiated and largely concerned prohibited matters within the jury room, thus no investigation was warranted.

Regarding BM's grounds of appeal, the court found the joinder of conspiracy and substantive charges appropriate as they concerned distinct offences with different victims and formed a coherent narrative of the evening's events. It rejected the contention that the jury risked confusion or prejudice.

The court held no additional lies direction was necessary concerning BM's account of his whereabouts, as the alleged lies were not relied upon by the prosecution to infer guilt but rather the direct evidence was the focus.

On good character directions, the court considered the trial judge's summing-up adequate, noting that both limbs of the direction—credibility and propensity—were given, though it advised future judges to consider wording carefully to avoid semantic confusion.

The court confirmed that the direction on joint enterprise and intent conformed with existing case law but certified a point of law for future consideration by the House of Lords relating to the mens rea required of secondary parties in murder cases.

In SA's appeal, the court examined the identification evidence and found no misdirection or omission of significant weaknesses in the summing-up. The court noted the absence of transcripts initially hampered the appeal, but after reviewing them, it concluded the trial judge's directions were appropriate and the evidence was sufficiently addressed.

On SA's sentence appeal, the court found the sentence neither manifestly excessive nor wrong in principle, considering the seriousness of the violent disorder and SA's knowledge of the knife possession within the gang.

Holding and Implications

The court DISMISSED the appeals against conviction of both appellants, BM and SA, and refused leave to appeal SA's sentence. It declined to order any investigation into alleged juror misconduct or to adjourn the hearing for that purpose. The court certified a point of law concerning the mens rea of secondary parties in murder for possible future consideration by the House of Lords but did not grant leave to appeal on that issue at this time.

The direct effect of this decision is the upholding of the convictions and sentence as delivered. No new precedent was established beyond the certification of the legal point for future appeal, and the court reaffirmed the importance of jury secrecy and the limited circumstances under which post-trial inquiries into jury conduct may be permissible.