Lahrar, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

On 8 March 2018, following a trial at the Crown Court at Basildon before His Honour Judge Lodge and a jury, the Appellant, then aged 20, was convicted of one count of murder. On 25 September 2018, the Appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 14 years, adjusted to 14 years and one day to correct a minor error in calculating time spent on remand. Four co-accused were involved: one pleaded guilty to murder and was sentenced accordingly, while three others were acquitted. The Appellant was represented by leading counsel at both trial and sentencing.

The Appellant now renews an application for an extension of time (1081 days) to apply for leave to appeal against conviction, following refusal by a single judge, and seeks leave to introduce fresh evidence pursuant to section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968. The fresh evidence comprises three psychological reports and two witness statements. The Appellant also appeals against sentence with leave granted by the single judge.

The underlying facts involve the victim, Mr Adger, who was attacked in a flat in Essex by the co-accused Boakye using a machete, resulting in Mr Adger's death. The prosecution case was that the Appellant participated in a joint enterprise, assisting or encouraging the attack with the requisite intent. The defense denied any participation or knowledge of the attack or weapon. The Appellant gave evidence denying involvement beyond attending to purchase drugs.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Appellant should be granted an extension of time and leave to appeal against conviction based on fresh evidence relating to his intellectual and psychological impairments.
2. Whether the fresh evidence meets the statutory criteria under section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 and is admissible.
3. Whether the Appellant's trial was unfair due to inadequate adjustments for his vulnerabilities, including the failure to appoint an intermediary.
4. Whether the jury should have been informed of the Appellant's intellectual disabilities and suggestibility to properly assess his intent and evidence.
5. Whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive, particularly in relation to the Appellant's youth, immaturity, and intellectual impairments.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The fresh psychological evidence from Dr Beck reveals significant intellectual disabilities, anxiety disorder, ADHD, and suggestibility that disadvantaged the Appellant during trial and impaired his ability to participate fully and understand proceedings.
• The failure to inform the jury of these impairments prevented them from properly assessing the Appellant's intent and credibility, rendering the conviction unsafe.
• The trial adjustments and safeguards were inadequate; no ground rules hearing was held, and the absence of an intermediary was unfair given the Appellant's vulnerabilities.
• The Appellant's low IQ and cognitive difficulties required expert evidence to assist the jury, as supported by precedents where defendants with IQs below 69 were found to need such evidence.
• The sentence failed to sufficiently reflect the Appellant's youth, immaturity, and intellectual challenges, warranting a greater reduction in the minimum term.

Prosecution's Arguments

• The fresh evidence is not admissible as it does not address the key issue of whether the Appellant participated in the joint attack with the requisite intent, but rather concerns procedural fairness and trial participation.
• The jury was adequately informed of the Appellant’s limited intellectual ability through trial adaptations and presence of an appropriate adult during police interview, enabling them to assess the evidence fairly.
• The Appellant was able to give clear and coherent evidence, withstand leading questions, and demonstrate understanding, indicating no disadvantage from the absence of an intermediary.
• The psychological assessments post-conviction are influenced by the Appellant’s negative view of his counsel and add little to the original report; thus, the conviction is safe.
• The sentence was appropriate, reflecting the seriousness of the offence, the Appellant’s role, and personal mitigation including intellectual impairments and youth.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court carefully considered the fresh psychological evidence and the Appellant's intellectual impairments. It acknowledged the expert reports but emphasized that the central issue was the Appellant's intent, which is typically a matter for the jury without the need for expert evidence unless exceptional circumstances arise. The court found no evidence that the Appellant's intellectual ability prevented him from forming the requisite intent to participate in the attack.

The court analyzed the trial transcript, noting the Appellant's ability to understand, respond to, and challenge questions, and the interventions made by the judge and counsel to ensure clarity. The court concluded that the safeguards recommended by the initial expert report were implemented, enabling the Appellant's effective participation.

The court rejected the argument that the jury should have been informed about the Appellant's intellectual disabilities and suggestibility, finding that the jury were sufficiently aware of his vulnerabilities from the evidence and trial adaptations, including the presence of an appropriate adult during police interview.

Regarding the absence of an intermediary, the court held that the trial judge was best placed to assess the Appellant during evidence and that the absence of an intermediary did not render the trial unfair.

On sentencing, the court found that the judge properly took into account the Appellant's youth, immaturity, and intellectual impairments, as well as the seriousness and aggravating features of the offence. The court held that the sentencing adjustments were fair and balanced, and the minimum term was not manifestly excessive.

Overall, the court concluded that the fresh evidence did not satisfy the statutory test for admissibility, the grounds of appeal were not arguable, and the sentence was appropriate.

Holding and Implications

The court refused the renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction and refused the application to extend time. The court also dismissed the appeal against sentence, upholding the life sentence with a minimum term of 14 years and one day.

The direct effect of this decision is that the Appellant's conviction and sentence remain unchanged. The court did not find any merit in the fresh evidence or the grounds of appeal and confirmed that the trial was fair and the sentence appropriate. No new legal precedent was established.