Sefaah, R. v

On a submission of no case to answer, the prosecution evidence must be taken at its highest. The issue is whether a properly directed jury could draw the proposed inference after rejecting realistic possibilities consistent with innocence.

In a carefully planned bank robbery, evidence that a defendant participated throughout the planning, commission and aftermath may permit an inference that the defendant knew firearms would be used. For a defendant who was not inside the bank, the jury must be sure both that the defendant agreed to the plan and knew the robbers would be armed.

The appellant was convicted at Kingston upon Thames Crown Court of conspiracy to rob and two offences of possessing an imitation firearm with intent to commit an indictable offence. He received concurrent sentences of ten years for conspiracy and eight years for each firearm offence.

He appealed by limited leave against the firearm convictions. He contended that there was no case to answer that he knew firearms would be used and that the trial judge's directions on that issue were inadequate. The prosecution case depended on circumstantial evidence, particularly telephone and cell-site evidence said to show his participation in a planned armed bank robbery.

1. Appeal dismissed. The convictions for the two firearm offences were safe, both because there was a case to answer and because the jury received proper directions.

2. The trial judge correctly applied the Galbraith test. Taking the prosecution case at its highest, there was evidence from which a reasonable jury could infer, after rejecting realistic innocent explanations, that the appellant had participated in the planning, commission and aftermath of the robbery.

3. That evidence was capable of supporting an inference that the use of firearms was an integral part of the plan and that those involved in organising and planning it knew firearms were necessary. The court distinguished R v Abbas [2012] EWCA Crim 2517. Unlike the less sophisticated shop robbery in that case, this was a planned bank robbery using inside information, involving security barriers, staff and customers, disguises, vehicles, extensive telephone contact and a planned escape. A jury could conclude that threats or violence, and therefore firearms, were required to carry it out successfully.

4. The summing-up correctly separated the robbers who used the firearms from the other defendants. The jury were directed that, for an outside participant, the prosecution had to make them sure that the defendant knew the robbers would be armed and agreed to take part in the plan. If that knowledge might have been absent, the verdict on the firearm counts had to be not guilty.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): By [2014] EWCA Crim 597, dismissed the appellant's appeal against conviction for the two imitation-firearm offences.
• Crown Court at Kingston upon Thames: On 24 August 2012, convicted the appellant of conspiracy to rob and two imitation-firearm offences. On 2 October 2012, imposed concurrent sentences of ten years' imprisonment for conspiracy and eight years' imprisonment for each firearm offence.