Tamwesigire, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

On 7 March 2020, the deceased attended a party at a nightclub ("the Club") located on Ilford High Road, East London. The appellant and four associates ("the appellant's group") were present and engaged in a verbal confrontation with the deceased on the dancefloor. The appellant's group left the Club and waited outside for the deceased, who emerged armed with a bottle. The deceased was chased by the appellant's group along Ilford High Road in what the judge described as "two loops". The deceased suffered three stab wounds and was pronounced dead later that morning. The appellant and his associates admitted being present but denied stabbing the deceased.

The appellant was convicted of murder following a trial at the Central Criminal Court before His Honour Judge Katz and a jury on 1 November 2023. After a slip rule hearing on 22 November 2023, the appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 24 years, less 12 days served on remand. The appellant now appeals against conviction and renews his application for leave to appeal against sentence following refusal by the single judge.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the witness statement of Natalie Parris was admissible hearsay evidence given that the trial judge ruled she was unfit to give live evidence.
2. Whether the minimum term of 24 years imprisonment, with credit for 12 days on remand, was manifestly excessive or wrong in principle.
3. Whether the judge erred in finding that the appellant took a knife to the scene and in his approach to sentencing, including credit for time spent on remand versus licence recall.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The witness statement of Natalie Parris was inadmissible hearsay as the judge failed to adequately explain why she was unfit to give evidence.
• The appellant did not take a knife to the scene, thus the sentencing under paragraph 4 of Schedule 21 to the Sentencing Act 2020 was incorrect.
• If the appellant did take a knife, the judge failed to sufficiently reduce the sentence to reflect the short time the knife was in joint possession and other mitigating factors.
• The sentencing was unfair because the judge initially credited 851 days on remand, later corrected to 12 days, resulting in an unfair outcome.

Respondent's Arguments

• The judge was correct to admit the witness statement of Natalie Parris, who was properly found unfit to give live evidence.
• Even if the evidence was wrongly admitted, the strength of the prosecution case was such that the conviction was safe.
• The sentence was fully justified, taking into account all aggravating and mitigating factors.
• The judge's correction of the sentence under the slip rule was necessary to cure an unlawful sentence and did not cause unfairness.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
R v Riat [2012] EWCA Crim 1509	Application of section 116 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 regarding hearsay evidence and witness fitness.	The court applied the principles from R v Riat in assessing the fitness of the witness Natalie Parris to give evidence and the admissibility of her witness statement.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court focused primarily on whether the trial judge was correct to admit the hearsay statement of Natalie Parris under section 116(2)(b) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which allows hearsay evidence when a witness is unfit to give live evidence due to bodily or mental condition.

The court reviewed extensive evidence including Ms Parris' own statements, medical records, and police witness statements demonstrating her diagnosis of PTSD, anxiety, and depression, and the detrimental effect that giving live evidence would have on her mental health. The judge had also considered the possibility of special measures or giving evidence via live link, which Ms Parris refused due to distress.

The court emphasized that fitness to give evidence is a matter for the trial judge's judgment based on all available evidence, and there was no requirement for a specific expert psychiatric report. The trial judge's holistic assessment and conclusion that Ms Parris was unfit to give evidence was supported by ample evidence and was not an error.

Regarding the sentencing appeal, the court found that the judge correctly treated the case as involving the appellant taking a knife to the scene, even if briefly. The judge properly balanced aggravating factors (group attack, use of multiple knives, public location, substance use, fleeing the country) against mitigating factors (lack of intent to kill, voluntary return to the UK). The judge's initial error in crediting 851 days on remand was corrected under the slip rule to 12 days, in accordance with statutory provisions excluding licence recall time from credit.

The court rejected the appellant's submissions of manifest excessiveness or unfairness in sentencing, affirming the judge's lawful and reasoned approach.

Holding and Implications

The court DISMISSED the appeal against conviction, upholding the trial judge's ruling on the admissibility of the witness statement of Natalie Parris.

The court also REFUSED the renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence, finding the life sentence with a minimum term of 24 years (less 12 days on remand) was lawful, properly reasoned, and not manifestly excessive.

This decision directly affects the appellant by affirming both conviction and sentence. No new legal precedent was established beyond the application of existing statutory and case law principles.