Sossongo, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant, aged 14 at the time of the offence, was convicted in June 2017 of murder and two linked offences of violence arising from a stabbing incident on 18 November 2016. He was convicted as a secondary party, with no suggestion of physical involvement in the stabbings. The Appellant was sentenced to detention at Her Majesty's pleasure with a minimum term of 14 years. Applications for leave to appeal against conviction were refused in 2017 and 2018. Subsequent psychological assessments in 2018 and 2019 diagnosed the Appellant with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), conditions undiagnosed at the time of trial. Fresh evidence based on these diagnoses was admitted on appeal against sentence in 2019, resulting in a reduction of the minimum term from 14 to 10 years. The Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) later referred the conviction back to the Court on the basis that the fresh evidence might render the convictions unsafe. The appeal now addresses whether the Appellant’s convictions are unsafe in light of the undiagnosed ASD and ADHD at the time of the offence and trial.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the fresh evidence of the Appellant’s undiagnosed ASD and ADHD at the time of the offence and trial renders his convictions unsafe.
2. Whether the jury, unaware of the Appellant’s mental disorders, was able to properly assess his credibility and involvement in the offences.
3. Whether the Appellant was unfairly disadvantaged in comparison to his co-accused who had similar disorders diagnosed and received trial accommodations.
4. Whether a retrial is warranted in the interests of justice.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The jury may have wrongly rejected the Appellant’s explanations for his actions and intentions due to ignorance of his ASD and ADHD.
• The jury was unable properly to assess the Appellant’s credibility when he gave evidence, as his presentation was affected by his undiagnosed conditions.
• The Appellant was disadvantaged compared to his co-accused, who had diagnosed disorders and benefitted from an intermediary, expert evidence, and tailored judicial directions.
• The Appellant’s limited cognitive abilities would have affected the jury’s assessment of bad character evidence, including alleged gang membership and possession of knives.
• Given these factors, the Appellant’s convictions are unsafe and he did not receive a fair trial.

Crown's Arguments

• The fresh evidence of ASD and ADHD, though accepted, would have made no difference to the jury’s verdicts; the convictions are safe.
• The prosecution case was compelling, supported by multiple strands of evidence including gang affiliation, presence at previous violent incidents, possession of knives, and communications indicating knowledge of the planned retaliation.
• The acquittal of the co-accused with diagnosed disorders was explained by his different position, including absence of gang membership and good character.
• The judge provided a general warning about young witnesses’ difficulties in expression, which was sufficient.
• The Appellant comprehended and responded well in the witness box, as demonstrated by the transcript and his conduct during cross-examination.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court carefully considered the fresh evidence diagnosing the Appellant with ASD and ADHD, noting these conditions were undiagnosed at the time of the offence and trial. The Court acknowledged that the Appellant’s mental impairments significantly affected his social functioning, consequential thinking, suggestibility, and ability to understand and respond to complex situations. These impairments likely influenced his behaviour during the offence and his presentation during trial, including his monosyllabic and sometimes confused testimony.

The Court contrasted the Appellant’s position with that of his co-accused, who had similar disorders diagnosed and received trial accommodations such as an intermediary and expert evidence, which assisted the jury in fairly assessing his evidence. The Appellant, lacking these supports, was disadvantaged.

The Court found that the jury, unaware of the Appellant’s ASD and ADHD, could not have made a fair and reliable assessment of his credibility or involvement. The prosecution’s reliance on improbabilities in the Appellant’s denials was undermined by the fresh evidence, which could have led the jury to different conclusions.

The Court also considered the impact of the Appellant’s disorders on the jury’s assessment of bad character evidence and gang membership, concluding that the jury’s evaluation would have differed had they been aware of the Appellant’s cognitive limitations.

Given the significance of the fresh evidence, the Court determined that the convictions were unsafe. However, the Court found that a retrial was in the interests of justice, balancing public and Appellant interests.

Holding and Implications

The Court held that the Appellant’s convictions for murder, wounding with intent, and attempted wounding with intent are UNSAFE AND QUASHED.

The Court ordered a retrial on the offence of murder, directing that a fresh indictment be served, the Appellant be arraigned within two months, and that the retrial take place at the Central Criminal Court or another Crown Court determined by the Presiding Judges of the South East Circuit. The Appellant is to be held in custody pending the retrial, with any bail or representation applications to be made to the Crown Court or the Legal Aid Agency respectively.

Publication of the judgment is postponed until the conclusion of the Crown Court proceedings to avoid prejudice. The decision does not establish new precedent but directly affects the parties by setting aside unsafe convictions and ordering a retrial.