Seed & Ors, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

On 15 August 2022, following a trial at the Central Criminal Court before HH Judge Katz KC and a jury, three applicants were convicted of conspiracy to cause grievous bodily harm with intent (count 1), murder (count 2), and possessing a firearm with intent to endanger life (count 3). They were acquitted of possessing an imitation firearm with intent to cause fear of violence (count 4). Sentencing occurred on 29 August 2022, with life imprisonment and minimum terms imposed for counts 1 and 2, and a 15-year term for count 3. The applicants sought leave to appeal against convictions and sentences, with one applicant requesting an extension of time for the appeal against sentence. The applications were referred to the full court by the Registrar.

The charges arose from an incident in the early hours of 16 July 2020, when the deceased, aged 27, was fatally shot amidst ongoing violent conflicts between rival gangs identified by "colours" in the Brent area. The applicants, members of the "red" gangs, were alleged to have driven into "blue" territory intending to cause serious injury. The applicants and three co-defendants faced various charges related to the incident and firearm possession.

The prosecution case included evidence of a shootout at a junction on Windrush Road, where the deceased was fatally wounded. Forensic evidence showed multiple firearms were used, including a Baikal pistol linked to the applicants. Circumstantial evidence such as mobile phone data and CCTV footage supported the prosecution's case. The applicants gave various accounts, with some denying gang membership and involvement in the shooting.

The trial judge made several rulings on the admissibility of evidence, including previous convictions and video recordings, which were challenged in the appeals. The judge also addressed submissions of no case to answer, particularly regarding the requirement under the law that a defendant could only be convicted of murder if there was proof of a shared agreement to shoot and be shot at, referencing key Supreme Court decisions.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to establish the applicants' shared common purpose to shoot and be shot at, thereby supporting their murder convictions under the principles in R v Gnango and R v Jogee.
2. Whether the trial judge erred in admitting evidence of previous convictions of two applicants.
3. Whether the admission of video evidence, including a music video and a video recovered from a co-defendant's phone, was lawful and fair.
4. Whether the judge correctly rejected submissions of no case to answer on counts 1, 3, and 4 concerning the applicants' presence in the Land Rover.
5. Whether the sentences imposed, including minimum terms and dangerousness findings, were justified and proportionate.
6. Whether one applicant should be granted an extension of time to appeal against sentence.

Arguments of the Parties

Applicants' Arguments

• Contended that the judge wrongly rejected no case submissions on count 2, arguing insufficient evidence of the necessary shared intention to shoot and be shot at.
• Challenged the sufficiency of evidence proving their presence in the Land Rover for counts 1, 3, and 4, asserting the prosecution failed to prove their involvement beyond reasonable doubt.
• Argued that previous convictions admitted were more prejudicial than probative, not gang-related, and improperly bolstered the prosecution case.
• Contended that the music video evidence was hearsay, prejudicial, and lacked evidential value, with inadequate jury directions.
• Submitted that a video on a co-defendant’s phone was improperly admitted against one applicant and was highly prejudicial without proper jury guidance.
• Asserted that the sentencing was disproportionate, failing to give sufficient weight to the mitigating factor that the murder victim was their friend, and challenged the dangerousness finding.
• One applicant sought an extension of time to appeal against sentence.

Respondent's Arguments

• Supported the judge’s legal framework and assessment of evidence, relying on eyewitness testimony, expert forensic evidence, and circumstantial data to establish the shared common purpose.
• Outlined three factual scenarios supporting the inference of shared intent to shoot and be shot at, regardless of which side fired first.
• Maintained that circumstantial evidence was sufficient to prove applicants’ presence in the Land Rover and involvement in the offenses.
• Argued that admitted previous convictions were relevant to loyalty and association with co-defendants, and not unfairly prejudicial.
• Defended the admission of the music video as contextual evidence regarding the deceased’s gang membership and the surrounding circumstances, with the judge providing adequate directions.
• Justified the admission of the video from the co-defendant’s phone as relevant to association and gang-related connections, with appropriate judicial directions.
• Asserted that the sentencing was appropriate given the seriousness of the offenses, the pattern of gang violence, and the statutory framework, with no merit in the applicants’ challenges.
• Opposed the extension of time application as unnecessary given the lack of arguable grounds.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court carefully examined the legal framework established by the Supreme Court decisions in Gnango and Jogee, confirming that a shared common purpose to shoot and be shot at can ground a murder conviction, even if the victim is on the same side as the defendant. The judge’s directions to the jury reflected this principle accurately and were not challenged.

The court found no error in the judge’s assessment of the sufficiency of evidence. The circumstantial and forensic evidence, including eyewitness testimony and mobile phone data, supported the inference that each applicant was a willing participant in the joint enterprise involving firearms. The court rejected the applicants’ argument that the evidence was insufficient due to uncertainty about who fired first or the one-sided nature of the gunfire exchange.

The court endorsed the judge’s rulings admitting certain previous convictions as relevant to loyalty and association, finding no unfairness or prejudice that would undermine the safety of the convictions.

The admission of video evidence, including the music video and the video from a co-defendant’s phone, was upheld as properly contextual and relevant to gang association issues. While the court acknowledged some imperfections in jury directions, these did not render the convictions unsafe.

Regarding sentencing, the court found the judge’s approach consistent with statutory guidelines and appropriately reflective of the serious aggravating factors, including gang warfare and the use of firearms in a residential area. The court rejected the applicants’ mitigation arguments, particularly the claim that the victim’s friendship with the applicants warranted significant sentence reduction.

Lastly, the court identified a procedural error in sentencing one applicant concerning the treatment of remand time. Applying recent case law, the court corrected the minimum term to properly credit the time spent in custody before trial.

Holding and Implications

The court REFUSED the applications for leave to appeal against conviction for all applicants, holding that the convictions are safe and supported by sufficient evidence and correct legal principles.

The court REFUSED the applications for leave to appeal against sentence by two applicants, including the extension of time application, finding no merit in the grounds raised.

The court GRANTED leave to appeal against sentence for one applicant solely to correct the calculation of the minimum term by deducting time spent on remand, substituting a reduced minimum term accordingly.

The direct effect is that the convictions and sentences stand as imposed, except for the corrected minimum term for one applicant. No new legal precedent was established; the court applied and affirmed existing legal principles concerning joint enterprise liability, evidence admissibility, and sentencing procedures.