Ngoie v R

Factual and Procedural Background

On 12th May 2017, three police officers observed a stationary Mercedes vehicle in Langley Park, London NW7, near two individuals suspected of drug use. The vehicle contained three occupants: the Defendant in the rear nearside passenger seat, Co-Defendant 1 in the front passenger seat, and Co-Defendant 2 in the driver’s seat. Police detained the occupants after observing the individuals on foot bending towards the vehicle’s windows. A total of 1.644 grams of heroin and 1.785 grams of crack cocaine were found in the vehicle, along with several mobile phones. The Defendant had no drugs or cash on him but was seated next to a mobile phone containing a deleted message indicative of drug supply and a contact saved as his probation officer.

The Defendant had two prior convictions for possession with intent to supply Class A drugs from 2015. He made no comment during police interview. The Crown alleged a joint enterprise to supply drugs between the Defendant and co-defendants, relying heavily on the phone messages and the circumstances observed by police. The Defendant denied involvement, claiming ignorance of the drugs and money in the car.

The Defendant was convicted by majority verdict in the Crown Court at Harrow on 14th June 2019 and sentenced on 21st June 2019, including a surcharge and forfeiture of seized items. He appealed against conviction with leave granted by Phillips J. The appeal was dismissed on 27th February 2020, with the present opinion providing detailed reasons.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the trial judge erred in his correction of defence counsel’s closing remarks regarding the evidence of police observation of the interaction between the pedestrians and the vehicle’s occupants, specifically concerning which window was involved in the alleged drug transaction.
2. Whether any such error rendered the Defendant’s conviction unsafe.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Defendant’s counsel contended that the body worn video footage did not capture any drug transaction taking place and that the evidence showed the interaction was through the front passenger window, not the rear window where the Defendant was seated.
• It was submitted that the trial judge erred by incorrectly correcting defence counsel’s closing speech, thereby undermining the credibility of defence counsel before the jury.
• The Defendant emphasized that this point could have been critical in his favour and that the judge should have qualified or corrected his comment to the jury.

Appellee's Arguments

• The Crown accepted that defence counsel was "technically correct" that the interaction was with the front passenger window but argued this was immaterial to the case’s substance.
• The Crown contended that the Defendant was fully aware of the drug dealing activity as part of a joint enterprise with the co-defendants.
• The Crown relied on the presence of incriminating messages on the mobile phone found next to the Defendant and the overall context of the evidence to support the conviction.
• The Crown submitted that the judge was justified in rejecting the defence’s overemphasis on the window issue and that the jury could consider the evidence as a whole.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court carefully reviewed the evidence, including the body worn video footage and the testimony of the police officer. It acknowledged that the defence was technically correct that the interaction was through the front passenger window rather than the rear window where the Defendant sat. However, the court found that the trial judge was entitled to conclude that the defence counsel had overstated this point and that the interaction was generally on the nearside of the car, involving both windows.

The court noted that the judge’s refusal to revisit or qualify his correction to the jury was unwise but did not amount to a serious error. It emphasized that the video footage was the best evidence on this point and that the jury could reasonably infer the pedestrians were positioned to interact with both windows, with the rear window open throughout.

Importantly, the court held that even if the judge’s handling of the issue was imperfect, this did not render the conviction unsafe. The remaining evidence against the Defendant was strong, including the incriminating phone message, his prior convictions, and the overall context of the joint enterprise. The court found it inconceivable that a different approach to the window issue would have affected the jury’s verdict.

Holding and Implications

The court DISMISSED the Defendant’s appeal against conviction.

The direct effect is that the conviction and sentence stand as determined by the Crown Court. No new legal precedent was established, and the decision affirms the principle that minor errors in trial judge’s comments, when considered in context, do not necessarily render convictions unsafe if the overall evidence is strong.