SC, R. v

A defendant may be a party to a conspiracy despite not attending the scene of the substantive offence. The question is whether the evidence, assessed cumulatively, permits a jury to infer an agreement to commit the relevant offence. Communications before and after the event, the surrounding gang context, conduct consistent with the planned result, and subsequent handling of stolen property may together support that inference.

Bad character evidence may be admitted where it is capable of shedding light on the defendant’s intention and awareness of likely violence in the relevant context. Its prejudicial effect remains a matter for the trial judge’s evaluation.

The appellant, who was 15 at the material time, was tried in the Crown Court at Wood Green arising from a planned attack, robbery and stabbing of a person associated with a rival gang. The prosecution alleged that he joined conspiracies to rob and to cause grievous bodily harm, although he did not travel to the park where the attack occurred.

The case against him principally comprised BBM messages with other alleged conspirators before and after the incident, his later possession and disposal of the stolen telephone, and limited bad character evidence. He was convicted unanimously of conspiracy to rob. The jury did not agree on the grievous bodily harm conspiracy, and he was later acquitted of that count on a retrial after a successful submission of no case to answer.

With leave of the single judge, he appealed his robbery conviction. He contended that there had been no case to answer on either conspiracy count and that the bad character evidence should not have been admitted.

1. Appeal dismissed. The conviction for conspiracy to rob was safe.

2. The trial judge was entitled to reject the submission of no case to answer on both conspiracy counts at the first trial. The appellant’s absence from the meeting place and the scene did not prevent a jury from finding that he had joined an earlier agreement. The gang feud and motive for revenge, the content and timing of the BBM communications, his attempts to assist with transport, and his continuing involvement after the attack formed a sufficient evidential basis for that conclusion.

3. There was sufficient evidence of the robbery conspiracy in particular. The appellant’s messages shortly after the robbery and stabbing gave no indication of surprise, dissociation or shock. They were capable of showing that the event was the intended outcome. His possession and attempted disposal of the complainant’s stolen telephone provided further support. The evidence had to be assessed cumulatively, rather than by considering each evidential strand in isolation.

4. The admission of the limited bad character evidence did not render the conviction unsafe. Possession of a knife shortly after the incident was capable of illuminating the appellant’s mindset, awareness of potential violence and intention in the gang context. The photographs were also capable of showing involvement with a gang rather than merely a group of associates. Those matters were relevant to an important issue, and the judge was entitled to decide that their probative value was not outweighed by unfair prejudice.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The appeal against the conspiracy-to-rob conviction was dismissed; the conviction was held safe.
• Crown Court at Wood Green: The appellant was unanimously convicted of conspiracy to rob. The jury did not agree on the conspiracy-to-cause-grievous-bodily-harm count, on which he was later acquitted at a retrial following a successful submission of no case to answer.