Everson, R v

Factual and Procedural Background

On 14 January 1993, the deceased was murdered by a close-range shotgun shooting. The Defendant, a drug dealer who had sold cannabis to the deceased on several occasions, was initially tried in 1994 and acquitted by a jury. Following a cold case review approximately 20 years later, the acquittal was quashed under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 due to new and compelling evidence, leading to a retrial in 2019. At the retrial, the Defendant was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 27 years, adjusted for time spent in custody or on bail.

The prosecution case relied heavily on circumstantial evidence, including the Defendant's financial difficulties, possession of a shotgun and shotgun cartridges, gunshot residue found in his car, and cash found on him shortly after the murder matching the deceased's money. The Defendant denied involvement in the murder and initially denied drug dealing and meeting the deceased on the night of the killing but later admitted to some drug dealing and possession of a shotgun in 1992. The Defendant did not testify at trial, and the defence argued there was no direct evidence placing him at the scene and suggested alternative suspects.

The Defendant appealed the conviction on grounds relating to the trial judge's directions on previous convictions and renewed applications to appeal on other grounds and against sentence, which had been refused by a single judge. The Defendant also raised allegations against his former legal representatives and sought to add further grounds of appeal. The court considered all grounds and submissions, focusing on their merits rather than procedural technicalities.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the trial judge erred in the directions given to the jury regarding the use of the Defendant's previous convictions, specifically whether an explicit propensity direction was required.
2. Whether the admission of the Defendant's 2015 interview statements was lawful, considering alleged misleading disclosure and the absence of an appropriate adult.
3. Whether expert evidence relating to firearms was improperly admitted.
4. Whether the admission of hearsay evidence from an unfit witness pursuant to section 116(2)(b) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 was appropriate.
5. Whether the trial judge erred in limiting cross-examination of a police officer concerning errors in pre-interview disclosure.
6. Whether the minimum term of the life sentence was manifestly excessive.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The trial judge failed to give a proper propensity direction regarding previous convictions related to firearms.
• The 2015 interview admissions should have been excluded due to misleading disclosure and lack of appropriate adult assistance.
• Expert evidence on firearms was prejudicial and lacked probative value.
• The hearsay evidence from a witness unfit to testify should not have been admitted.
• The trial judge improperly restricted cross-examination of a police officer about disclosure errors.
• The minimum term of 27 years was excessive given the circumstances.
• Additional allegations of police misconduct and criticisms of prosecution evidence, including failure to disclose material relating to alternative suspects.
• Criticisms of former legal representatives for incompetence and alleged sabotage of the defence and appeal.

Respondent's Arguments

• The trial judge's directions on previous convictions were appropriate and no further propensity direction was necessary.
• The admission of the 2015 interview evidence was correct despite the admitted disclosure error; no exclusion was warranted under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.
• Expert evidence was properly admitted and any issues with weight were for the jury to decide.
• The witness was properly found unfit to give evidence, justifying hearsay admission under the Criminal Justice Act 2003.
• The trial judge correctly limited cross-examination as the proposed questioning was irrelevant and could distract the jury.
• The minimum term was within a proper range for this serious offence with aggravating features.
• Disclosure was adequate, and defence counsel had opportunities to cross-examine relevant witnesses; allegations of police misconduct lacked foundation.
• Former legal representatives acted properly and professionally, declining to make baseless allegations that would harm the defence case.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court carefully examined the single ground of appeal granted leave concerning the trial judge's directions on previous convictions. It found that the judge had properly limited the jury's use of such evidence to a narrow purpose related to possession of shotguns, and no broader propensity direction was required. The court emphasized that no party had suggested the jury could use the convictions to infer a propensity to kill, and the judge's direction was therefore appropriate and did not undermine the safety of the conviction.

The court addressed the renewed grounds refused by the single judge, including challenges to the admission of the 2015 interview evidence, expert firearms evidence, hearsay evidence from an unfit witness, and limitations on cross-examination. It upheld the trial judge's rulings, finding no arguable basis to overturn them. The evidential and procedural decisions were within the judge's discretion and did not prejudice the Defendant's case.

Regarding the Defendant's additional submissions, including lack of direct evidence and criticisms of motive and police conduct, the court acknowledged the circumstantial nature of the case and the jury's role in weighing evidence. It found no basis to conclude unfair prejudice or procedural unfairness. Allegations against former legal representatives were rejected as unfounded, noting that counsel must act professionally and cannot advance baseless claims.

On sentence, the court confirmed the judge correctly applied the relevant statutory provisions and sentencing principles. The minimum term reflected the seriousness of the offence, relevant aggravating and mitigating factors, and was within an appropriate range. There was no basis to find the sentence manifestly excessive.

Holding and Implications

The court DISMISSED the appeal against conviction and REFUSED the renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence. The Defendant remains convicted of murder and subject to the life sentence with a minimum term of 27 years as previously imposed.

The decision confirms the correctness and safety of the conviction and sentence based on the circumstantial evidence and the trial judge's rulings. No new legal precedent was established, and the court emphasized adherence to proper evidential and procedural standards in criminal trials involving cold case reviews and retrials.