Judgment Summary (Anonymised)

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion, delivered by Judge Foxton, concerns two appellants (both aged 19 at the time of trial) who were convicted on 16 July 2024 at the Crown Court in The City of attempted murder and possession of a bladed article. On 3 September they were sentenced to custody for life with minimum terms of 10 years 344 days. Appellant 1 sought a 16-day extension to renew an application for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence after leave had been refused by a single judge; the court granted that extension due to a solicitor's bereavement affecting timely filing. Appellant 2 renewed his application for leave to appeal against sentence following single-judge refusal.

Substantively, on 24 July 2023 at about 19:15 the Complainant was attacked in a public area near a gym. Two masked assailants approached, questioned him about an association with a third party, and then stabbed him repeatedly. CCTV captured the incident. The Complainant suffered multiple lacerations and later identified the appellants to police. Appellant 1 had left for Pakistan on 25 July and was arrested on return; Appellant 2 surrendered to police on 14 August. Neither answered interview questions. A retrial followed a halted first trial; the prosecution relied on identification evidence, CCTV, possession of a similar bladed article by Appellant 1 on 23 June, a distinctive bag, extensive phone contact between the appellants, cell-site evidence, and Appellant 1's travel and accommodation arrangements. Both appellants were convicted after the judge rejected no-case submissions and admitted a prior conviction (bad character) in respect of Appellant 1.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether Appellant 1 should be granted an extension of time to renew his application for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence.
2. Whether the trial judge erred in admitting Appellant 1's prior conviction (bad character evidence) on the basis that it improperly bolstered a weak identification case.
3. Whether the trial judge erred in refusing the submissions of no case to answer (having directed herself under R v Galbraith and, for identification, R v Turnbull and R v Long).
4. Whether the imposition of discretionary life sentences was manifestly excessive and/or whether the appellants were insufficiently warned that a life sentence was under consideration.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant 1's Arguments

• Challenged the admission of his prior conviction as bad character on the basis that it was being used to bolster a weak identification case (relying on R v Hanson).
• Submitted that, given the alleged weakness of identification, the judge should have acceded to the submission of no case to answer.
• Argued the life sentence was manifestly excessive and that he had not been sufficiently alerted to the possibility of a life sentence to make submissions on it.

Appellant 2's Arguments

• Renewed an application for leave to appeal against sentence, arguing that a life sentence was excessive and an extended determinate sentence would have sufficed.
• Argued that the judge did not sufficiently inform him that a life sentence was under consideration so he could make appropriate submissions.

Prosecution's Position

• Relied on identification evidence supported by CCTV, physical items (a bag), phone contact between the appellants, cell-site evidence, Appellant 1's flight and hotel arrangements, and Appellant 1's prior possession of a similar bladed article to establish the case beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Contended that the bad character evidence was admissible to show propensity and was not being used merely to bolster weak identification evidence.
• Maintained that a life sentence was open given findings of dangerousness and risk of serious harm in pre-sentence reports.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
R v Hanson [2005] EWCA Crim 824	Submission that bad character evidence was being used to bolster a case dependent on weak identification.	The appellants relied on Hanson; the judge and this court rejected that the bad character was admitted solely to bolster weak identification.
R v Galbraith [1981] 1 WLR 1039	Direction governing submissions of no case to answer.	The trial judge directed herself in accordance with Galbraith when considering the no-case submissions; the court accepted that direction was correct.
R v Turnbull [1977] QB 224	Guidance on identification evidence in jury directions.	The judge applied Turnbull principles to identification issues; the appellate court accepted the judge's approach.
R v Long (1973) 57 Cr App Rep 871	Additional authority on identification and no-case submissions.	Used alongside Turnbull in the trial judge's directions; this court accepted that usage.
R v Forbes [2000] UKHL 66	Direction regarding significance of failure to conduct an identification parade under Code D PACE 1984.	The judge gave the Forbes direction to the jury about the potential significance of no identification parade; no complaint was made about that direction on appeal.
Attorney General's Reference No 27 of 2013 (Burinskas) [2023] EWCA Crim 336	Framework for considering discretionary life sentence versus an extended determinate sentence where defendants are dangerous.	The court cited this reference to explain the sentencing options the judge had to consider in light of the appellants' dangerousness assessments.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court granted Appellant 1 a short extension of time due to the solicitor's bereavement and proceeded to consider the merits. On the conviction challenge, the court analysed whether admission of Appellant 1's prior conviction improperly bolstered an otherwise weak identification case. The court noted the trial judge gave a detailed ruling admitting the prior conviction as showing propensity and rejected the submission it was being used solely to bolster weak identification (Hanson relied on by appellants).

On identification, the court observed that CCTV showed prolonged close interaction (nearly two minutes) during which the Complainant looked at and spoke with his assailants; the Complainant knew Appellant 1 from school and later made a positive identification. While accepting factors that could reduce reliability (stress, medication, initial non-identification), the court emphasised that the identification did not stand alone: corroborating material included possession by Appellant 1 of a weapon of the same kind previously found on him, the distinctive bag shown on CCTV, cell-site evidence, phone contact between the appellants around the time of the offence, Appellant 1's travel and hotel arrangements the night of the attack, and motive linked to a familial grievance. The judge had directed herself under Galbraith and given Turnbull/Long guidance on identification; she also gave a Forbes direction on the failure to conduct an identification parade. The court concluded these factors collectively rebutted the contention that the prosecution case depended solely on weak identification, and therefore the no-case submissions were properly rejected.

On sentence, the court considered whether the appellants were sufficiently warned that a discretionary life sentence was being considered. Pre-sentence reports had specifically addressed dangerousness and stated the appellants understood the court was considering dangerousness and the dangerous guidelines. The court acknowledged a clearer judicial statement would have been desirable but found the defence should have been alert to the possibility and that, in any event, both appellants had full opportunity on appeal to address the appropriateness of life sentences. The court accepted the judge's factual findings: a revenge-motivated daylight attack, steps to conceal identity, multiple stab wounds causing permanent impairment and psychological harm, high risk of imminent further serious harm in PSRs, lack of remorse, and prior possession of bladed articles. Having weighed youth and immaturity as mitigation (and reflected that in the minimum terms), the court concluded the trial judge was entitled to impose discretionary life sentences so that release after the minimum term would be assessed by the Parole Board.

Holding and Implications

Extension of time granted — The court granted Appellant 1 an extension of 16 days to renew his application for leave to appeal due to the solicitor's bereavement.

Leave to appeal against conviction refused (Appellant 1) — The renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction was refused.

Leave to appeal against sentence refused (both appellants) — Both appellants were refused leave to appeal against sentence; the life sentences with the minimum terms imposed by the trial judge stand.

Implications: The direct effect is that the convictions and life sentences (with the stated minimum terms) remain operative. The court did not indicate the creation of any new legal precedent; it applied established authorities to the facts of the case.