Factual and Procedural Background
This opinion concerns appeals against convictions for conspiracy to murder and conspiracy to cause grievous bodily harm with intent, involving seven appellants. The conspiracies were alleged to have occurred between 4 November 2020 and 6 February 2021. After a trial lasting approximately ten weeks before Judge Goose and a jury, several appellants were convicted: three for conspiracy to murder and four for conspiracy to cause grievous bodily harm with intent. Some appellants pleaded guilty to related offences prior to trial.
The background to the offences involved a violent rivalry between two gangs, referred to as the M40 gang and the RTD gang, operating in north Manchester and surrounding areas. This rivalry manifested in violent attacks, social media exchanges, and drill rap music containing threats and references to violence. On 5 November 2020, a member of the RTD gang was stabbed in a public attack by members associated with the M40 gang. Later that day, violent disorder occurred involving weapons and resulted in the murder of a member of the M40 gang.
Following the murder, the prosecution alleged that ten persons formed a conspiracy to take violent revenge against the rival gang. The conspiracy was split into two counts: conspiracy to murder and conspiracy to cause grievous bodily harm with intent. Evidence included messages from a Telegram social media chat where participants planned attacks, shared information about targets, and discussed the use of violence, bribery, and blackmail. Some appellants used pseudonyms in these chats.
Several violent incidents occurred pursuant to the conspiracy, including attacks with machetes and attempts to run victims over with a car. The trial included evidence of gang membership or affiliation, photographs, and social media material. The judge admitted certain evidence relating to gang membership, including photographs showing appellants holding cash to their ears, which was argued to be a gang-related gesture.
The appeals challenge convictions and sentences on various grounds including legal directions on conspiracy, the use of guilty pleas, admissibility of evidence, identification evidence, and sentencing principles.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the trial judge's approach to the law of conspiracy was incorrect.
- Whether the judge's direction on the use of guilty pleas by two appellants to count two (conspiracy to cause grievous bodily harm) was wrong.
- Whether the judge misdirected the jury on section 34 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 relating to failure to mention facts in interview.
- Whether the judge was wrong to admit photographs of appellants holding cash to their ears ("money phone").
- Whether the summing up by the judge regarding the photographs showing cash by the ear was incorrect.
- Whether the identification evidence by a police officer of an appellant wearing a blue bandana in a video was wrongly admitted or undermined by fresh evidence.
- Whether a retrial should be ordered if any convictions were quashed.
- Whether the sentences imposed on certain appellants were wrong in principle or manifestly excessive.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellants' Arguments
- The appellants contended that there were two separate conspiracies (to murder and to cause grievous bodily harm) which the judge conflated, leading to misdirection.
- It was argued that the prosecution failed to prove two distinct conspiracies and that the judge's directions on the use of guilty pleas were flawed and prejudicial.
- Appellants challenged the admissibility of the photographs showing cash held to the ear, asserting they were cultural imitations and examples of racial stereotyping and adultification.
- They submitted that the judge's directions on failure to mention facts in interview under section 34 CJPOA 1994 were inadequate, as specific facts not mentioned were not identified.
- One appellant challenged the identification evidence based on a video clip, supported by fresh evidence suggesting mistaken identity.
- Arguments were made that the sentences were excessive, mechanistic, and failed to properly reflect individual roles and mitigating factors, including the Sentencing Children and Young Persons guideline and potential disproportionality in sentencing Black defendants.
Prosecution's Arguments
- The prosecution submitted there was a single agreement to take violent revenge with varying intentions to kill or cause grievous bodily harm, which was lawful to prosecute as overlapping conspiracies.
- They argued the judge's directions on guilty pleas were legally sound and that the evidence of acts and statements by conspirators was properly admissible.
- The prosecution defended the admission of the photographs as relevant evidence of gang membership or affiliation, notwithstanding cultural imitations.
- They contended that the section 34 directions were appropriate and that an exhaustive list of facts not mentioned would have been impractical.
- Regarding identification, the prosecution relied on the police officer's identification evidence and maintained it was reasonably admitted, though the fresh evidence was considered at appeal.
- On sentencing, the prosecution submitted the trial judge was best placed to assess culpability and that the sentences were neither wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent |
Rule or Principle Cited For |
Application by the Court |
| R v Alimi [2014] EWCA Crim 2412 |
Relevance of gang membership and bad character evidence |
Referenced regarding the need to avoid unfairly treating individuals as gang members and relevance of such evidence. |
| R v Barnard (1980) 70 Cr App R 28 |
Limits on admissibility of acts/statements in separate conspiracies |
Applied to explain that separate conspiracies require separate agreements and evidence from one conspiracy is not admissible against conspirators in another. |
| R v Gray [1995] 2 Cr App R 100 |
Admissibility of acts/statements made by co-conspirators |
Confirmed that acts/statements are admissible against other conspirators if they are party to the same conspiracy. |
| R v Roberts [1998] 1 Cr App R 441 |
Multiplicity of offences in conspiracy counts |
Clarified that a conspiracy count involving different offences requires agreement by conspirators to all offences charged. |
| R v Crothers NICA [2000] 2158 CARC 3285 |
Conviction for lesser conspiracy offence when greater not proven |
Permitted conviction for conspiracy to cause grievous bodily harm where conspiracy to murder was not established. |
| R v Saik [2006] UKHL 18; [2007] 1 AC 18 |
Definition and elements of conspiracy under CLA 1977 |
Confirmed that the crime of conspiracy is complete upon agreement with necessary intention, regardless of whether offence is committed. |
| R v Ahmed Ali [2011] EWCA Crim 1260 |
Assessment of roles in conspiracy and sentencing |
Referenced regarding sentencing principles and assessment of individual culpability within conspiracies. |
| R v Mehta [2012] EWCA Crim 2824 |
Requirement of common unlawful design in conspiracy |
Applied to confirm that conspirators must share a common unlawful purpose. |
| R v Shillam [2013] EWCA Crim 160 |
Criticism and role of conspiracy law in serious crime |
Noted the complexity of conspiracy trials but affirmed its continued role in prosecuting serious organised crime. |
| R v Meyrick and Ribuffi (1930) 21 Cr App R 94 |
Wheel and chain conspiracy concept |
Explained that conspirators need not directly communicate with all others but must share a common design. |
| R v Siracusa (1990) 90 Cr App R 340 |
Intention to kill required for conspiracy to murder |
Emphasized that conspiracy to murder requires proof of intention to kill, not merely intention to cause serious harm. |
| R v Miah [2009] EWCA Crim 2368 |
Requirements for section 34 CJPOA 1994 directions |
Held that specific facts not mentioned in interview should be identified to clarify the ambit of adverse inferences. |
| R v ZA [2023] EWCA Crim 596; [2023] 2 Cr App R(S) 45 |
Sentencing children and young persons |
Outlined principles for sentencing young offenders, including stepped approach and proportionality. |
| R v Greenfield (1973) 57 Cr App R 849 |
Trial judge's role in determining individual roles in conspiracy |
Approved that the trial judge is best placed to assess the role of defendants in conspiracy for sentencing. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court carefully analyzed the legal framework governing conspiracy under section 1 of the Criminal Law Act 1977 and relevant case law. It emphasized that conspiracy requires an agreement to pursue a course of conduct that will necessarily involve commission of an offence, and that the crime is complete upon agreement, irrespective of whether the offence is carried out.
The court distinguished between two separate conspiracies in this case: one to murder and one to cause grievous bodily harm with intent. It held that these are distinct agreements with different intentions and that treating them as a single conspiracy was incorrect in law. However, on the facts, those guilty of conspiracy to murder were necessarily also guilty of conspiracy to cause grievous bodily harm, given the overlapping course of conduct.
The court found that the trial judge's directions on the use of guilty pleas and the admissibility of acts and declarations by conspirators were broadly correct and did not render convictions unsafe. It acknowledged that the directions may have been too generous but concluded the jury's verdicts were not undermined.
Regarding section 34 CJPOA 1994 directions on failure to mention facts in interview, the court held that the judge should have required the prosecution to specify the facts not mentioned to enable proper jury consideration. Nonetheless, the failure to do so did not make convictions unsafe in this case.
The court upheld the admission of photographs depicting appellants holding cash to their ears, reasoning that such evidence was relevant to gang membership or affiliation, especially given the agreed existence of the M40 gang and its practices. The court rejected the argument that these were merely imitations of celebrity culture, emphasizing that such issues were properly left to the jury.
On the identification evidence of an appellant wearing a blue bandana in a video clip, the court admitted fresh evidence from a witness claiming to be the person in the video. This evidence undermined the police officer's identification and was accepted as credible. The court concluded that the appellant's conviction was unsafe due to the mistaken identification and quashed the conviction.
On the issue of retrial, the court declined to order one, noting that the appellant whose conviction was quashed had already served a sentence equivalent to what would likely be imposed, given the reduction in sentences for other appellants.
Regarding sentencing, the court found that the trial judge had erred by not sufficiently reflecting the lesser roles of certain appellants in the conspiracy and by categorizing the intended harm at too high a level. Applying appropriate guidelines, the court reduced the sentences of two appellants to reflect their lesser culpability and mitigation, including age and good character. The court also took into account the Sentencing Council’s guidance on racial disparities in sentencing.
Holding and Implications
The court DISMISSED the appeals against conviction for all appellants except one, whose conviction was QUASHED due to unsafe identification evidence supported by fresh evidence.
The court ALLOWED the appeals against sentence for two appellants and substituted reduced custodial sentences reflecting appropriate levels of culpability and mitigation.
The court declined to order a retrial for the appellant whose conviction was quashed, as the sentence he would likely have received was effectively served.
The decision clarifies the application of conspiracy law where overlapping but distinct conspiracies exist, reinforcing that separate conspiracies with different intentions must be treated distinctly, although overlapping conduct may result in concurrent guilt.
The ruling on admissibility of cultural gestures as evidence of gang membership underscores the necessity of reliable evidence and careful jury directions to avoid unfair stereotyping.
Sentencing adjustments highlight the importance of individualized assessment of culpability and the need to consider mitigating factors, particularly for young offenders and in the context of racial disproportionality.
No new precedent was established beyond the application and clarification of existing principles to the facts of this case.