Factual and Procedural Background
After a jury trial in the Crown Court at Woolwich before Judge Bennathan, the Appellant was convicted on 28 May 2024 of four counts, including the murder of the Deceased, possession of a firearm with intent to endanger life, section 18 wounding, and possession of a prohibited firearm. [Para 27][Para 28][Para 29][Para 30][Para 31][Para 32]
The Appellant had also previously pleaded guilty to a conspiracy to supply Class A drugs, and the trial judge later imposed a life sentence for murder with a minimum term of 36 years and 111 days, together with concurrent sentences totalling 28 years’ imprisonment. [Para 36][Para 37][Para 38]
The prosecution case was that the murder arose from a planned shooting outside a social gathering, supported by circumstantial evidence including EncroChat material, burner phones, vehicle movements, cell-site data, and other electronic evidence. [Para 28][Para 29][Para 44][Para 45][Para 46][Para 47][Para 48][Para 49][Para 51][Para 52][Para 53][Para 54][Para 55][Para 56][Para 57][Para 58][Para 59][Para 60][Para 61]
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the trial judge erred in admitting evidence of the Appellant’s 2012 conviction for perverting the course of justice as bad character evidence under section 101 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, including gateways (d), (f), and (g), or should have excluded it as unfair. [Para 72][Para 73][Para 74][Para 78][Para 79]
- Whether the minimum term of the life sentence was manifestly excessive, having regard to the aggravating features and the mitigation advanced for the Appellant. [Para 106][Para 107][Para 108][Para 109][Para 110][Para 111][Para 112][Para 113][Para 114][Para 115][Para 116][Para 117][Para 118][Para 119][Para 120]
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The 2012 conviction should not have been admitted as bad character evidence because none of the relied-upon gateways applied, and the evidence should in any event have been excluded as unfair. [Para 72][Para 73][Para 74]
- The earlier conviction arose in very different circumstances, and the Appellant said the current criticisms of the prosecution timeline and EncroChat material were fair and did not amount to the kind of attack needed to engage gateway (g). [Para 83][Para 84]
- The admission of the evidence was said to be highly prejudicial and not capable of being cured by re-examination or direction. [Para 101]
- The sentence was said to be too severe, with insufficient weight given to mitigation including good prison conduct, family circumstances, and age. [Para 116][Para 117][Para 118]
Respondent's Arguments
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
On conviction, the court held that the trial judge’s ruling on bad character was fair and balanced, and that he had gone to great lengths to admit only the minimum necessary evidence to reduce prejudice. [Para 89][Para 103]
The court accepted that the judge, having seen the Appellant give evidence, was best placed to assess whether the Appellant’s testimony involved a planned attack on the prosecution within gateway (g), and it held that the other gateways were also available. [Para 89]
The court further held that the judge’s directions to the jury were sufficient to neutralise any prejudice, because they explained the limited purpose of the evidence and warned against using the prior conviction as proof of guilt in the present case. [Para 90][Para 91][Para 94][Para 95][Para 96][Para 97][Para 98][Para 99][Para 100][Para 101][Para 102]
On sentence, the court held that the judge had properly applied the principle of totality, avoided double counting, and started from a 30-year minimum term before increasing it to reflect the scale of the offending. [Para 106][Para 107][Para 108]
The court said the uplift was justified by planning, premeditation, sophistication, the use of multiple vehicles and burner phones, the harm to bystanders, and the Appellant’s criminal history, while the mitigation would not have made a substantial difference. [Para 109][Para 110][Para 111][Para 112][Para 113][Para 114][Para 115][Para 120]
Holding and Implications
The renewed applications for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence were refused. [Para 103][Para 120]
The practical effect is that the Appellant’s convictions and sentence remain undisturbed, and the court identified no broader doctrinal change or new precedent. [Para 103][Para 120]