Grant-Murray & Anor v REGINA

Factual and Procedural Background

This judgment concerns two renewed applications for leave to appeal heard together due to related grounds concerning the Supreme Court decision in R v Jogee [2016] UKSC 8. The first application involves two appellants convicted of murder and wounding with a knife at the Central Criminal Court. The second application involves three appellants convicted of murder at the Crown Court in Liverpool. Both sets of applicants challenge their convictions and sentences on various grounds, including misdirections on joint enterprise, admission of bad character and fresh evidence, and issues related to the trial of young defendants.

The first applicants were convicted following a confrontation that escalated to stabbing incidents involving knives and a bottle. One co-accused pleaded guilty, another was acquitted. The second applicants were members of a gang involved in a fatal stabbing in a laundrette, with evidence including CCTV footage and witness testimony. They were sentenced to detention during Her Majesty's Pleasure with specified minimum terms.

Both applications were made after the original trials and sentencing, with extensions of time sought for the second group due to fresh counsel and grounds not raised initially.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the jury directions on joint enterprise liability were correct in light of the Supreme Court decision in R v Jogee.
2. Whether the admission of bad character evidence relating to previous convictions was lawful and relevant.
3. Whether fresh evidence relating to one appellant's diagnosis of autism should be admitted and its impact on conviction and sentence.
4. Whether the plea of a co-accused constitutes fresh evidence affecting the convictions.
5. Whether the appellants, as young defendants, were able to effectively participate in their trials in accordance with procedural safeguards for vulnerable witnesses and defendants.
6. Whether the mandatory sentences of detention during Her Majesty's Pleasure imposed on the young appellants are compatible with Articles 3 and 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
7. Whether the minimum terms imposed were manifestly excessive.

Arguments of the Parties

First Applicants' Arguments

• The jury were misdirected on joint enterprise liability, and the directions did not reflect the law as changed by R v Jogee.
• The judge erred in admitting bad character evidence of previous convictions as irrelevant to knowledge of weapons on the day.
• Fresh medical evidence diagnosing autism in one appellant should be admitted, impacting the assessment of mens rea and credibility.
• The plea of a co-accused, admitting to inflicting fatal wounds, should be admitted as fresh evidence.

Second Applicants' Arguments

• The jury directions on joint enterprise were incorrect post-Jogee and failed to tailor directions to the youth, immaturity, and cognitive disabilities of the appellants.
• The appellants were denied a fair trial due to inadequate procedural adaptations for young defendants, including seating in the dock, lack of intermediaries, and improper questioning.
• The mandatory sentences of detention during Her Majesty's Pleasure are incompatible with ECHR Articles 3 and 5 due to their indeterminate and punitive nature on juveniles.
• The minimum terms imposed were excessive given the appellants’ age, developmental status, and progress.

Prosecution's Arguments

• The jury directions, although pre-dating Jogee, did not cause substantial injustice given the evidence.
• Bad character evidence was relevant and admissible to show knowledge of knives and propensity to violence.
• The fresh evidence of autism diagnosis was unreliable due to incomplete medical history and inconsistencies with prior assessments.
• The plea of the co-accused was not fresh evidence and should have been adduced at trial.
• The trial procedures for young defendants complied substantially with current standards; the appellants were able to participate effectively.
• The mandatory life sentences with minimum terms and parole review comply with ECHR requirements and are justified by the nature of the offences and risks posed.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court considered each ground of appeal in turn, applying established legal principles and the factual record.

Regarding joint enterprise, the court acknowledged the change in law by R v Jogee but found that the jury directions, though given before Jogee, were sufficiently clear on the need for knowledge and intention. The evidence supported the jury's findings, and no substantial injustice was shown.

On the admission of bad character evidence, the court found that previous convictions for knife possession were relevant to establishing knowledge of weapons and propensity for violence, and thus admissible under the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The court upheld the trial judge's rulings and the single judge's rejection of the appeal on this ground.

The application to admit fresh evidence of autism diagnosis was examined in detail. The court scrutinised the medical history, the timing and completeness of evidence, and expert testimony. It found the fresh evidence insufficiently persuasive due to incomplete records, conflicting prior assessments, and lack of explanation for failure to present it at trial. The court concluded that the evidence would not have materially affected the jury's verdict or credibility assessments and declined to admit it.

The plea of a co-accused as fresh evidence was rejected as not new and should have been presented at trial. The failure to call the co-accused as a witness and absence of a statement rendered the ground hopeless.

In relation to the trial of young defendants, the court reviewed procedural safeguards including seating arrangements, use of intermediaries, ground rules hearings, questioning methods, and breaks. It found that while some procedural imperfections occurred (e.g., failure to consider seating outside the dock in open court), the trial judge and counsel took appropriate measures to ensure effective participation. Expert evidence suggesting inability to participate was discredited or given limited weight. The court found no breach of fair trial rights and no unsafe convictions.

On the challenge to mandatory sentences of detention during Her Majesty's Pleasure, the court analysed statutory provisions, case law, and international obligations. It reaffirmed that such sentences are lawful and compatible with ECHR Articles 3 and 5, particularly given the serious nature of the offences and the risk posed by the appellants. The court rejected arguments for incompatibility and declarations to the contrary.

Regarding the minimum terms, the court found that the sentencing judge had appropriately considered all relevant factors, including youth, cognitive difficulties, and culpability. The minimum terms imposed were the lowest possible consistent with the facts and law, and no reduction was warranted.

Finally, the court emphasised the duty of newly instructed counsel to make thorough inquiries of previous legal teams before advancing grounds of appeal, to avoid unnecessary delays and unmeritorious appeals.

Holding and Implications

The court REFUSED all renewed applications for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence by both sets of applicants.

The court held that:

• The jury directions on joint enterprise, though given before the law changed in R v Jogee, did not cause substantial injustice.
• Admission of bad character evidence was lawful and relevant.
• Fresh evidence of autism diagnosis was inadmissible and would not have affected the verdict or sentence.
• The plea of a co-accused did not constitute fresh evidence and was not a ground for appeal.
• The trial procedures for young defendants complied substantially with required safeguards, and the appellants were able to participate effectively.
• The mandatory sentences of detention during Her Majesty's Pleasure, including minimum terms and parole review, are lawful and compatible with human rights obligations.
• The minimum terms imposed were proportionate and reflected all relevant mitigating and aggravating factors.

No new precedent was established by this decision; it reaffirmed existing legal principles and procedural standards. The decision confirms the current approach to joint enterprise liability post-Jogee, the admissibility of bad character evidence, the strict criteria for admitting fresh evidence, and the procedural protections required for young defendants in serious criminal trials. It also affirms the compatibility of mandatory life sentences for juveniles with ECHR rights, subject to review and parole.