Areguy, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

In 2019, the Plaintiff resided in a flat at Kneller Court, Academy Gardens, Northolt. On 6 March 2019, shortly after 11:00 p.m., the Plaintiff was shot at through the letterbox of his flat but sustained only minor injuries. Later that evening, two men, Defendant 1 and Defendant 2, were arrested in a stolen Range Rover in London, wearing latex gloves and, in one case, body armour. Shotgun residue was found on Defendant 1's gloves. The Range Rover and the shotgun used were linked to a third man, Defendant 3, who obtained the shotgun from his father's collection. The attack was planned and coordinated by two brothers, Defendants 4 and 5, who were drug dealers with a dispute against the Plaintiff over money owed for drugs.

On the evening of 6 March 2019, Defendant 4 took Defendants 1 and 2 on a reconnaissance trip from Earl's Court to Northolt in a Vauxhall Astra owned by the Appellant. The Astra was captured by ANPR and CCTV cameras near the location of the attack. Telephone records showed communications between Defendants 4, 5, and Defendant 3 around the time of the reconnaissance and attack. Subsequent arrests followed, with Defendant 5 remaining out of jurisdiction. The defendants were sent to Crown Court at different times, with trials delayed by the COVID-19 pandemic. Eventually, all were charged with conspiracy to murder the Plaintiff, with some also charged with possession of a firearm with intent to endanger life. All were convicted, with sentences ranging from 18 to 27 years. The Appellant pleaded not guilty but was convicted and sentenced to 18 years.

The Appellant now applies for leave to appeal his conviction, initially represented by Counsel A and Counsel B. After referral to the full Court due to fresh evidence, new Counsel C and Counsel D were instructed, seeking to add a ground of ineffective representation at trial.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether fresh evidence relating to the identification of the Appellant's vehicle on CCTV footage should be admitted and if it would afford a ground for allowing the appeal.
2. Whether the Appellant's trial representation was so ineffective as to render the trial unfair and the verdict unsafe.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Appellant sought to rely on fresh expert evidence from a forensic video analyst challenging the prosecution's identification of the Appellant's vehicle on CCTV footage, arguing it was not definitively a Vauxhall Astra and that the vehicle seen leaving the location was different from the one entering.
• The Appellant contended that the prosecution's case was unsustainable without proving the presence of his vehicle on the CCTV footage.
• New counsel argued the Appellant's trial representation was inadequate, citing involvement of a non-solicitor in preparation, lack of substantive contact, failure to appreciate the significance of CCTV evidence, and failure to instruct an expert on CCTV analysis.
• The Appellant claimed that solicitors and counsel failed to properly prepare and challenge the prosecution's evidence, rendering the trial unfair.

Respondent's Arguments

• The prosecution maintained that the fresh evidence would not have altered the verdict as the circumstantial case against the Appellant was compelling regardless of the vehicle's presence on CCTV.
• They argued that the evidence identifying the vehicle was already undermined at trial, and the expert report merely confirmed existing doubts without changing the overall case.
• Regarding representation, the prosecution contended that despite some shortcomings, the Appellant's representation was competent and did not render the trial unfair.
• They highlighted that counsel effectively cross-examined key witnesses and made strategic decisions, including the decision not to instruct a CCTV expert, which was reasonable given the evidence.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court carefully examined the fresh expert evidence offered, concluding that two of the three expert conclusions were already effectively established during trial through cross-examination of the police officer who identified the vehicle on CCTV. The officer’s identification was undermined by his incorrect belief about the vehicle model and by his concession that the vehicle lacked a brake light present on the Appellant’s car. The third conclusion of the expert, regarding the vehicle’s movement on CCTV, would not materially affect the jury’s verdict.

The Court found that the circumstantial evidence against the Appellant was strong independently of the CCTV evidence, including his presence on the reconnaissance trip with co-conspirators, telephone communications, and implausible explanations for the journey. The judge’s directions to the jury reflected that the case did not depend solely on the vehicle’s presence on CCTV.

Regarding the claim of ineffective representation, the Court acknowledged shortcomings in the conduct of the solicitors, including the involvement of a non-solicitor with a conflict of interest and limited substantive contact with the Appellant. However, the Court concluded that these did not render the trial unfair. Counsel’s handling of the late introduction of CCTV evidence was competent, including effective cross-examination of the police officer and a reasonable tactical decision not to seek expert evidence. The Court rejected the assertion that the junior counsel failed to master the case, noting detailed trial notes and active participation.

The Court applied established principles requiring new grounds of appeal to be cogent and properly arguable, finding the proposed new ground of inadequate representation did not meet this standard.

Holding and Implications

The Court REFUSED the application for leave to appeal the conviction.

The fresh evidence was not admitted as it would not have afforded a ground for allowing the appeal. The Appellant was found to have received competent representation at trial, and no unfairness or unsafe verdict arose from the conduct of his legal team. The decision directly upholds the Appellant’s conviction and sentence. No new legal precedent was established beyond the application of existing principles concerning fresh evidence and ineffective representation.