Jibril, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

On 22 July 2021, in the Crown Court at Leicester before Judge Recorder Auty KC, the Appellant, then aged 26, was convicted of wounding with intent contrary to section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 and reckless arson contrary to the Criminal Damage Act 1971. He was acquitted of arson with intent to endanger life. On 17 December 2021, the same judge imposed an extended custodial sentence of 12 years with a 5-year extension for the arson offence, alongside a concurrent 4-year sentence for wounding. The Appellant initially applied for leave to appeal against conviction without legal representation but later instructed fresh counsel who abandoned prior grounds and sought to introduce fresh grounds of appeal.

The prosecution case arose from an incident on 3 January 2021 in Leicester where a man, identified as the victim, was found with multiple stab wounds and his flat was discovered to be on fire. Police found another man asleep in the flat who provided an account implicating the Appellant, known by the nickname "Smoky," in stabbing the victim and setting the fire. CCTV footage and DNA evidence linked the Appellant to the scene and the victim’s injuries. The victim was known to be vulnerable with mental health issues and identified the Appellant in an identification procedure.

The defence denied the Appellant’s involvement in the assault or the fire. The Appellant gave evidence describing a social gathering at the victim’s flat involving several people, including a man named "Max," whom he claimed was responsible for the stabbing. The Appellant denied setting the fire and stated he was elsewhere at the relevant time. The trial judge rejected a submission of no case to answer, leaving the matter to the jury, who convicted the Appellant.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Appellant should be granted leave to vary the Notice of Appeal to advance fresh grounds based on alleged ineffective assistance of previous legal representatives.
2. Whether the convictions are unsafe in light of new evidence and instructions not previously advanced, specifically concerning the involvement of a third party ("Max").

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Appellant contends that his former legal representatives failed to properly investigate or present a full defence, specifically by not including allegations that another individual, "Max," was the true perpetrator of the stabbing and arson.
• He provided clear written instructions before trial indicating that "Max" had admitted stabbing the victim, but this was not disclosed at trial due to advice from his advocate concerning the risk of bad character evidence being admitted against him.
• The failure to investigate corroborative evidence about "Max" bullying the victim was a significant omission by his previous solicitors.
• The Appellant argues that this failure deprived him of a full and fair defence and that the convictions may therefore be unsafe.

Respondent's Position

• The prosecution lodged a Respondent's Notice opposing the initial grounds of appeal composed by the Appellant but declined to respond to the application to vary the Notice of Appeal to include the new grounds.
• The prosecution contends that the new grounds do not affect the safety of the convictions and that the Appellant’s previous legal advice was legitimate tactical advice given the risks of bad character evidence.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court accepted that the Appellant had provided instructions implicating "Max" before trial but noted that these instructions were not included in the Defence Statement. The trial advocate advised against blaming "Max" to avoid bad character evidence against the Appellant, which was considered legitimate tactical advice under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 provisions.

The Court found no arguable basis that the new grounds could affect the safety of the arson conviction, as there was no evidence suggesting "Max" was present when the fire was set. The Court also observed that the failure to investigate "Max’s" role was a late and speculative argument without adequate explanation for the delay.

The jury had the benefit of the Appellant’s defence that he was absent during the offences, and they rejected this version, concluding the Appellant was present and responsible. The Court emphasized that the Appellant’s allegations against "Max" did not undermine the circumstantial evidence placing the Appellant at the scene.

Accordingly, the Court concluded that the proposed amendment to the Notice of Appeal and the new grounds did not raise a real prospect of the convictions being unsafe.

Holding and Implications

The Court REFUSED LEAVE to amend the Notice of Appeal and REFUSED LEAVE TO APPEAL on the proposed fresh grounds.

The direct effect is that the Appellant’s convictions and sentences remain upheld. The Court did not establish any new legal precedent, and the decision confirms the principle that tactical decisions by defence counsel, particularly regarding bad character evidence, will not ordinarily render convictions unsafe absent compelling reasons.