Mahil & Ors v R.

Logical inconsistency between verdicts does not make a conviction unsafe unless the only explanation may be jury confusion or a wrong approach. A jury may reject parts of each defendant’s evidence and acquit where it is not sure of guilt.

A participant in an agreed attack intended to cause really serious harm remains liable for that attack even if another participant secretly intends to kill. The secret intention does not prevent a shared intention to cause grievous bodily harm.

For involuntary manslaughter, sentence depends on the particular harm, culpability and mitigation. There is no general hierarchy between unlawful-act and gross-negligence manslaughter. Under the Criminal Justice Act 2003, fatal consequences require particular weight.

After a trial at the Central Criminal Court before HHJ Worsley QC, the three appellants faced allegations arising from the luring, assault and removal of Gagandip Singh. Singh was placed in the boot of a car which was later set on fire while he was alive.

Shoker was convicted of murder. Mahil was acquitted of murder but convicted of causing grievous bodily harm with intent. Peters was acquitted of murder and the section 18 count, but convicted of gross-negligence manslaughter. Mahil and Shoker appealed their convictions. Mahil and Peters also appealed sentence.

The central issues included the safety and consistency of the jury’s differing verdicts, trial rulings and directions, and whether the sentences were manifestly excessive.

All appeals were dismissed.

1. The differing verdicts did not render Mahil’s or Shoker’s convictions unsafe. The jury could accept or reject different parts of each defendant’s evidence. Peters’s acquittals concerning the violence at the house meant only that the prosecution had not proved its case against him to the criminal standard. The verdicts were consistent with the route-to-verdict questions and the distinct evidence against each appellant.

2. The concerns about employer pressure on jurors did not support an inference of a compromised verdict. Nor did a juror’s improper Facebook comments after verdict and sentence establish that the jury had disregarded directions, conducted extraneous research, or discussed the case externally before reaching verdicts.

3. The trial judge properly allowed a housemate to be treated as hostile. The witness had deliberately departed from earlier accounts. The directions adequately explained the position and left the jury to assess the whole of her evidence. The proposed evidence of Sonny’s lies to police was rightly excluded because the asserted inferences from those lies were speculative and irrelevant.

4. There was sufficient evidence to leave the murder and section 18 counts against Mahil to the jury. A person who agrees to an attack intended to cause really serious harm is not absolved from liability for that attack because another participant secretly intends to kill. The secret intention necessarily included an intention to cause grievous bodily harm, but did not make the first participant liable for the subsequent killing.

5. The Crown’s unauthorised question to Shoker about an incident in court did not require discharge of the jury. Assuming it fell outside sections 98(1)(b) and 101(1)(e), the judge could and did cure any minimal prejudice by an emphatic direction that the exchange was not evidence against Shoker.

6. Mahil’s six-year sentence was not manifestly excessive. Peters’s twelve-year sentence was also justified. There is no general sentencing hierarchy between unlawful-act and gross-negligence manslaughter. The court gave decisive weight to the death caused, Peters’s knowledge that Singh was in the boot, his failure to check whether he was alive, and his participation in setting the car alight. The sentencing approach reflected the enhanced weight given to fatal harm under the Criminal Justice Act 2003.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — dismissed the appeals against conviction brought by Mahil and Shoker, and dismissed the sentence appeals brought by Mahil and Peters: [2013] EWCA Crim 673.
• Central Criminal Court — HHJ Worsley QC convicted Shoker of murder, Mahil of causing grievous bodily harm with intent, and Peters of gross-negligence manslaughter. Mahil received six years’ detention and Peters twelve years’ detention.