Odunewu & Ors v R.

Factual and Procedural Background

This is an appeal from the Central Criminal Court arising from incidents on 3–5 May 2023 and related earlier and subsequent proceedings. Four individuals (referred to here as Appellant 1, Appellant 2, Appellant 3 and Appellant 4) were tried together after earlier pleas to possession of bladed articles by some. At trial Appellant 2, Appellant 3, Appellant 1 and Appellant 4 were convicted of violent disorder (count 1) and murder (count 2); Appellant 3 was convicted of attempted murder (count 3) while Appellant 2, Appellant 1 and Appellant 4 were convicted of the lesser alternative (wounding with intent) (count 4); Appellant 4 was also convicted of possession of a bladed article (count 5). The convictions followed a trial at which CCTV footage, eyewitness evidence and forensic/pathological evidence were central. Sentences were imposed at first instance; several applications for leave to appeal convictions and appeals against sentence were renewed before the Court of Appeal.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the judge erred in ordering joinder of the 3 May 2023 violent disorder with the events of 5 May 2023 (murder and related offences).
2. Whether the judge erred in refusing submissions of no case to answer in respect of murder (count 2) and wounding with intent (count 4) for various appellants.
3. Whether the judge's summing-up was unbalanced as to particular appellants.
4. Whether the judge should have given a direction on self-defence specifically directed to secondary parties.
5. Whether fresh psychiatric evidence should be admitted on appeal to permit a new diminished responsibility ground under section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968.
6. Whether the sentences passed were excessive and require reduction on appeal.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellants' Arguments

• Joinder: the 3 May incident was of a different character and insufficiently connected to the 5 May events; joinder prejudiced the defence.
• No case submissions: each applicant argued the prosecution evidence, at its highest, could not prove encouragement or assistance by the secondary parties because the stabbing acts were individual and occurred when other members were not nearby; in short, the stabbings were spontaneous individual acts in self-defence.
• Summing-up: for some appellants it was submitted that the judge's summary unduly emphasised joint action and failed adequately to summarise key defence points and interview evidence.
• Self-defence direction: appellants argued the judge should have directed the jury that, in relation to secondary parties, the jury must be sure the secondary party was not assisting/encouraging conduct which they believed necessary or reasonable for defensive purposes.
• Fresh evidence (Appellant 4): new psychiatric reports say Appellant 4 was suffering paranoid schizophrenia at the time and so could rely on diminished responsibility.
• Sentence: appellants sought reductions, relying on youth, vulnerability, exploitation, mental health and mitigation described in pre-sentence reports.

Respondent's Arguments

• Joinder: offences formed a series with sufficient nexus—close in time, same group, same weapons, proximate locations, similar circumstances.
• No case submissions: prosecution relied on CCTV, eyewitness accounts, forensic/pathological evidence and the activities of the group over the preceding days to infer joint enterprise and conditional intent; these were matters for the jury.
• Summing-up and self-defence: the directions given were adequate for the way the defences were advanced; no specific request for the additional secondary-party self-defence direction was made at trial.
• Fresh evidence: the psychiatric reports were not compelling enough to show a defence on the balance of probabilities and were contradicted by contemporaneous evidence and trial transcript; the requirements of section 23 were not met.
• Sentence: the original sentencing judge applied correct principles; any reduction should reflect totality and the appropriate allowances for age and mitigation.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court addressed each renewed application and appeal in turn, applying statutory and established appellate principles as stated in authority.

Joinder: applying the nexus test derived from Kray and Ludlow, the court assessed temporal and factual proximity, common participants and similarity of weapons and circumstances. Finding close time proximity, the same group present with the same weapons and similar locations and circumstances, the court concluded joinder was correctly ordered.

No case submissions: applying Galbraith, the court reviewed the CCTV, eyewitness, forensic and pathologist evidence and considered Jogee on secondary liability in spontaneous multi-handed violence. The court held that the whole body of evidence could, on a proper view, support inferences of conditional intent and that separating individual movements in a fast-moving incident was primarily a jury function. Accordingly the judge did not err in refusing the submissions.

Summing-up and self-defence directions: the court examined the trial transcript and route-to-verdict document. It found the judge had directed the jury appropriately on primary and secondary liability and had reminded the jury of interview material; the additional direction contended for (as per Cunningham) was unnecessary on the facts because no secondary-party asserted a belief that stabbing by the principal was necessary or reasonable for defence.

Fresh psychiatric evidence (Appellant 4): the court heard expert evidence and a joint statement. Applying section 23 Criminal Appeal Act 1968 and appellate authorities (including Foy and Pearson), the court examined credibility, admissibility and whether the evidence could, on balance, afford a realistic prospect of establishing diminished responsibility. It concluded the contemporaneous evidence (including Appellant 4's trial testimony) contradicted the proposition of substantial impairment and that the fresh evidence would not meet the civil standard required; admission was refused and the proposed ground failed.

Sentence appeals: the court reviewed sentencing exercise and schedule starting points, taking account of aggravating and mitigating features including youth, mental health, exploitation and totality. It concluded some minimum terms were manifestly excessive and adjusted them to achieve a just and proportionate overall sentence for each relevant appellant.

Holding and Implications

DISPOSITION

Conviction appeals: The renewed applications for leave to appeal convictions were refused; the court found no error in joinder or in the judge's refusal of submissions of no case to answer, and refused admission of fresh psychiatric evidence under section 23.

Sentence appeals: The court allowed certain appeals against sentence and revised minimum terms as follows (all other sentences unaltered):

• Appellant 2: original minimum term quashed and replaced with a minimum term of 25 years and 208 days.
• Appellant 3: original minimum term quashed and replaced with a minimum term of 18 years and 235 days.
• Appellant 4: original minimum term quashed and replaced with a minimum term of 12 years and 207 days.

Implications: The court upheld the trial judge's handling of joinder, no-case submissions and directions on joint enterprise and self-defence in the context of multi-handed, armed violence. The refusal to admit fresh psychiatric evidence confirms the high threshold for overturning convictions on new medico-legal material where contemporaneous evidence and trial testimony undermine the new material. Reductions in minimum terms demonstrate appellate adjustment for totality, youth and mitigation but do not alter convictions; no new legal precedent was established.