Lima, R. v

An acquittal of a co-defendant does not make a defendant’s conviction logically inconsistent where the evidence permitted the jury, after proper separate directions, rationally to reach different conclusions about each defendant’s possession, purpose and credibility. The appellate court will not infer inconsistency merely because both defendants advanced similar accounts. It may uphold a conviction where the jury could conclude that the convicted defendant possessed the prohibited article without good reason, while not being logically obliged to convict the co-defendant on the same or a joint-enterprise basis.

The appellant was convicted at Wood Green Crown Court of possessing a double-ended knife in a public place without good reason or lawful authority. He had been a rear-seat passenger in a car in which the knife was found. His co-defendant, Almeda, had bought the knife in his own name and was acquitted on the same count.

Both defendants said that the knife had been bought for decorative display, but their accounts of whose idea it was and who owned it conflicted. Lima accepted that he had taken possession of the knife at the shop and carried it to the car. The Recorder directed the jury repeatedly to consider each defendant separately.

The appeal challenged Lima’s conviction on the ground that Almeda’s acquittal made the verdicts logically inconsistent.

1. Appeal dismissed. The verdicts were not logically inconsistent. The jury had been entitled, having been directed to assess each defendant separately, to reach different conclusions about the two defendants.
2. The evidence supported a rational conclusion that Almeda bought the knife in his name because Lima, who was under 21, could not satisfy the shopkeeper’s age requirement. The jury could conclude that the knife was bought for Lima, immediately handed to him, and carried by him to the car in a concealed manner.
3. The jury could also conclude that Almeda’s initial account to the arresting officers was truthful, but that both defendants later lied about the knife being intended for ornamental display. On that view, Lima possessed the knife in the car and had no good reason for doing so.
4. Almeda might have been convicted on a joint-enterprise basis, but the jury were not logically obliged to convict him. His acquittal therefore did not undermine the separate and sustainable conviction of Lima.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Dismissed Lima’s appeal against conviction.
• Wood Green Crown Court On 3 March 2009, convicted Lima of possessing a double-ended knife in a public place without good reason or lawful authority.