Rashid, R v

Factual and Procedural Background

Following a trial at the Crown Court at Snaresbrook before Judge Hughes QC and a jury in December 2018, the appellants were convicted on multiple counts including conspiracy to possess a firearm with intent to endanger life, possession of ammunition without a certificate, and possession of offensive weapons in a public place. The appellants, identified as Rashid, Tshoma, and KS, were involved in events on 21 May 2018 where police observed their movements around a secure underground car park in East London. A VW Golf registered to Tshoma was found to contain a loaded double-barrelled sawn-off shotgun, a loaded revolver, ammunition, a machete, and other weapons. The prosecution alleged that the appellants were members of a gang known as the Beckton Boys or ACG and used the vehicle as a safe place for weapons for gang-related activities. Rashid and Tshoma were sentenced to 13 years' imprisonment, while KS had not yet been sentenced. The appellants appealed against their convictions with leave granted by a single judge.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the evidence of gang membership and association, particularly through expert police testimony and video evidence, was admissible and properly directed to the jury.
2. Whether the judge’s directions to the jury concerning the use of gang-related evidence and identification evidence were adequate and sufficient.
3. Whether the convictions were safe in light of the evidential and procedural issues raised, including the admission of evidence and jury directions.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellants' Arguments

• The appellants challenged the admission and use of expert evidence from PC Saban regarding gang membership, arguing it was based on interpretations of music videos, social media, and unidentified sources.
• They contended the judge failed to properly direct the jury on how the gang evidence could be used and did not provide written directions or a route to verdict in a timely manner.
• There was a specific challenge to the adequacy of directions relating to the identification of KS in a video clip, asserting the judge did not give a full Turnbull direction as required for disputed identification evidence.
• Tshoma argued that the directions concerning the covertly recorded cell conversations were insufficiently clear as to their use and relevance.
• Concerns were raised about the prejudicial nature of the video linking KS to the murder of a 14-year-old, which was said to be highly prejudicial and not curable by direction.

Prosecution's Arguments

• The prosecution maintained that the gang-related evidence was relevant and admissible under sections 98 and 101 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, supported by police expertise and corroborated by various forms of evidence including videos, mobile phone content, and covert recordings.
• They argued that the evidence established the appellants’ membership in a violent gang with links to firearms, relevant to proving intent to endanger life.
• The prosecution did not oppose the judge’s directions on identification evidence and considered the directions given sufficient.
• The prosecution contended that the video evidence linking KS to the gang and to firearms was admissible and material to the case.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court carefully considered the admissibility and use of gang-related evidence under sections 98 and 101 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. It found no legitimate complaint about the admission of PC Saban’s expert evidence, noting his qualifications and experience were unchallenged. The court acknowledged that bad character evidence, including gang affiliation and associated violent tendencies, was relevant to proving intent and rebutting innocent presence.

The court identified shortcomings in the judge’s directions to the jury, particularly the failure to provide clear, focused directions on the use of gang evidence and the absence of written directions and an early route to verdict. It emphasized that such omissions risk errors and complicate the summing-up process.

Despite these deficiencies, the court found that the judge’s directions covered key points: the jury had to be sure of gang membership, that membership alone did not establish guilt, and that the jury should not be prejudiced but could weigh the evidence accordingly.

Regarding identification evidence, the court acknowledged the judge did not give a full Turnbull direction but concluded the warning given was sufficient given the corroborative evidence from multiple police officers and the availability of the video and the appellant in court.

The court also addressed the admissibility of a video linking KS to a murder-related shooting, finding it admissible due to its relevance to the conspiracy involving firearms.

In evaluating the overall safety of the convictions, the court considered the totality of the evidence, including the appellants’ conduct, forensic evidence, gang membership, and the nature of the offences. It concluded that the convictions were safe despite the identified errors in jury directions.

Holding and Implications

The court DISMISSED THE APPEALS AGAINST CONVICTION.

The direct effect of this decision is that the convictions of the appellants for conspiracy to possess firearms with intent to endanger life and related offences are upheld. The court did not establish new precedent but clarified the standards for jury directions on gang evidence and identification. The decision underscores the necessity for clear and timely jury directions, written guidance, and routes to verdict in complex cases involving gang-related evidence. However, the court confirmed that errors in directions do not necessarily render convictions unsafe if the overall evidence supports the verdicts.