Lovell, R. v

Evidence of an earlier threat involving a firearm may be admissible where it provides important explanatory context, demonstrates motive, or bears on an important issue between prosecution and defence. A close connection in time and subject matter may also make it evidence relating to the alleged facts of the offence under the Criminal Justice Act 2003.

For sentencing, the 30-year starting point in paragraph 5 of Schedule 21 is not confined to the person who fired the fatal shot. It may apply to a secondary party who was a full and willing participant in a planned joint enterprise, knew a firearm would be used, and played an active part in pursuing the victim.

The appellant was convicted at Teesside Crown Court of murder after a joint enterprise attack in which his co-accused shot and killed the victim. The prosecution alleged that the appellant had joined a planned revenge attack, had made threats, carried a weapon during the chase, and knew that his co-accused had a firearm.

At trial, the judge admitted evidence that, a few days earlier, the appellant had said that he and others were in a vehicle with a gun while looking for a person connected with damage to his home. The appellant appealed against conviction, principally challenging the admission and directions concerning that evidence. He also renewed an application for permission to appeal his minimum term of 25 years, arguing that the 30-year starting point was inapplicable to a non-shooter and that insufficient mitigation had been allowed.

1. Appeal against conviction dismissed. The earlier conversation concerning a gun was properly admitted. It provided important explanatory context for the evidence that the appellant and others were seeking revenge for damage to his home. It was also capable of demonstrating motive.

2. The evidence was relevant to an important issue between prosecution and defence: whether the appellant’s asserted reluctance to be involved in the use of a firearm was true, and whether he knowingly participated in an enterprise in which a gun might be used. Its admission was justified under section 101(1)(c) and (d) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. It was independently admissible under section 98(a), because of its sufficiently close temporal and subject-matter connection with the alleged offence.

3. The summing-up gave sufficient guidance. The judge identified the limited ways in which the evidence could be used, warned the jury to be sure of the relevant witnesses, and made clear that it could not by itself establish guilt. Although the evidence was described in shorthand as propensity evidence, its proper analysis was as evidence bearing on an important matter in issue.

4. Renewed application concerning sentence dismissed; extension of time refused. Paragraph 5 of Schedule 21 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003 covers a murder involving the use of a firearm by a joint enterprise participant. It is not restricted to the person who pulled the trigger. The appellant was a full and willing participant in a planned revenge attack, knew that a firearm would be used, and pursued the victim while armed himself. His age and absence of an intention to kill were mitigating features, but his secondary role carried little weight in those circumstances. The 25-year minimum term was not manifestly excessive.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The appeal against conviction was dismissed. The court refused an extension of time and dismissed the renewed application for permission to appeal against sentence.

2. Crown Court at Teesside: The appellant was convicted of murder on 13 December 2016 and, on 19 December 2016, sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 25 years less time spent on remand.