Odunuga, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

On 3 April 2024, in the Inner London Crown Court before Her Honour Judge Karu, the Appellant was convicted by a majority of 10 to 2 of murder (count 1) and possession of an article with a blade or point (count 2). On 4 April 2024, the Appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 27 years less 191 days on the murder count and a concurrent term of four years on the second count. The Appellant applied for a 10-day extension to renew his application for leave to appeal against conviction following refusal by a single judge. The central issue for the court was whether to grant this extension, which depended on whether the proposed appeal was arguable.

The incident leading to the conviction occurred on 19 September 2023 when the victim, Brian Edwards, was stabbed and killed outside his home in Upper Tollington Park, London. Prior to the stabbing, the victim had been at home with two friends, using cannabis and crack cocaine, and had arranged to purchase more drugs. At around 4:00 am, after receiving a telephone call, the victim went outside alone and was stabbed three times in the thigh and buttock area. Witnesses observed a male attacker wielding a machete, persistently attempting to harm the victim. The attacker was seen retrieving items from a silver BMW parked nearby before fleeing the scene. Police recovered a key fob near the scene and obtained CCTV footage tracking a lone male wearing distinctive footwear moving between the crime scene and Belmont Road, where the Appellant’s mother resided. The Appellant was later observed purchasing a SIM card after reporting his phone lost.

The prosecution case linked the Appellant to the crime through evidence including eyewitness testimony, CCTV footage, forensic pathologist reports on the wounds, cell site analysis linking the Appellant’s phone to a drugs line used to arrange the victim’s drug purchase, DNA evidence matching the Appellant to the BMW key fob, and the Appellant’s previous convictions related to drug dealing and knife possession. The Appellant denied involvement, asserting an alibi that he was at his mother's address during the attack and claimed that another individual, "Cally," was responsible for the drugs line and the BMW.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the trial judge erred in ruling that an alternative verdict of manslaughter should not be left to the jury.
2. Whether the proposed appeal against conviction is arguable and thus whether an extension of time to renew the application for leave to appeal should be granted.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The judge should have left the alternative verdict of manslaughter to the jury because there was some evidence supporting it.
• The fatal wound was to a non-vulnerable part of the victim's body, and the attacker did not follow through with stabbing to more vulnerable areas, suggesting a lesser intent.
• The jury should have been allowed to consider whether the intent was to cause less than really serious bodily harm rather than murder.
• The absence of a manslaughter direction forced the jury into an unrealistic choice between murder and acquittal, unfairly disadvantaging the Appellant and rendering the conviction unsafe.

Respondent's Arguments

• The prosecution resisted the application, noting that the victim described the weapon as a machete and contending that the judge applied the correct legal test.
• The judge correctly ruled that the evidence only supported a verdict of murder or acquittal, not manslaughter.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court considered whether the trial judge erred in not leaving manslaughter as an alternative verdict. The legal test requires a judge to leave a lesser alternative offence to the jury if it is obviously raised by the evidence before the court, a highly fact-sensitive determination. The judge applied the correct test and found no evidence about what transpired between the victim and attacker at the scene to support manslaughter. The two deeper stab wounds were accepted as causing really serious bodily harm, a fact conceded by the Appellant at trial.

The court rejected the Appellant’s submission that the attacker’s failure to target more vulnerable parts or follow through with the machete indicated lesser intent. The key issue was whether the attacker intended to cause really serious injury, not necessarily an intention to kill. The evidence showed the use of a particularly dangerous weapon, multiple stab wounds with moderate to severe force, and the context of serious criminal activity. Therefore, the judge was entitled to rule that manslaughter was not a realistic alternative verdict.

The court found ample evidence supporting the conviction for murder and concluded that the appeal was not arguable. Consequently, the application for an extension of time to renew the appeal was refused.

Holding and Implications

The court REFUSED the application for an extension of time to renew the application for leave to appeal against conviction.

The direct effect is that the Appellant’s conviction and sentence remain undisturbed. No new precedent was established, and the decision confirms the established principle that a judge need only leave a lesser alternative offence to the jury if it is realistically supported by the evidence. The ruling reinforces the strict application of this test in cases involving serious injury and clear intent to cause really serious harm.