Goodall, R. v

Different verdicts returned by separate juries in separate trials do not, without more, render a conviction unsafe. The evidence and the respective defendants may differ, and an acquittal includes the possibility that the allegation was not proved. An appellant who relies on such disparity will therefore succeed only in truly exceptional circumstances.

For sentencing under paragraph 5A of Schedule 21 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003, a joint participant need not personally use the fatal weapon or predict which participant will use it. It is sufficient that the participant joins in the murder intending that the victim be killed or seriously injured by a weapon brought to the scene by an attacker.

Abdul Hafidah was killed after a gang-related chase and attack. Thirteen men were charged with murder and, because a single trial was impracticable, they were tried in two groups. In the first trial, four defendants were convicted of murder and three of manslaughter. At the second trial, Durrell Goodall, Reano Walters and Trey Jacob Wilson were convicted of murder.

All three sought leave to appeal against conviction, contending that their murder convictions were inconsistent with the manslaughter verdicts reached in the first trial. Walters also sought leave to appeal against his 20-year minimum term, arguing that the sentencing judge should not have used paragraph 5A of Schedule 21 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003.

1. The court refused the renewed applications for leave to appeal against conviction. It also refused Wilson's application for an extension of time, since an extension would serve no useful purpose. Walters' renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence was likewise refused.

2. The test discussed in R v Fanning [2016] EWCA Crim 550 concerned allegedly inconsistent verdicts returned in a single trial. This case concerned different juries, separate trials and evidence which differed significantly. The court followed the reasoning in R v Andrews Weatherfoil Ltd (1972) 56 Cr App R 31: different verdicts in separate trials do not of themselves show that the guilty verdict was unsafe.

3. Each applicant had been fairly tried and there was evidence upon which the jury in the second trial could convict. Comparisons with defendants tried before the first jury did not compare like with like. The applicants had therefore shown no arguable inconsistency capable of rendering their convictions unsafe. The court did not exclude the possibility that an argument of this kind might exceptionally arise on different facts, but held that it would require truly exceptional circumstances.

4. Paragraph 5A of Schedule 21 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003 applied to a joint participant in a murder who intended that the victim would be killed or seriously injured by a weapon brought to the scene by one of the attackers. The participant need not have personally inflicted the fatal injury, known which co-accused would inflict it, or predicted the particular weapon that would do so. The sentencing judge was entitled to apply that starting point to Walters.

5. The sentencing judge had been entitled to find that Walters joined the final assault and to assess his individual culpability. The minimum term properly reflected the aggravating features, mitigation and Walters' significant role. It was not manifestly excessive.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The court refused the renewed applications for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence. It also refused Wilson's application for an extension of time.

• Single judge: Langstaff J had refused the applicants' applications for leave to appeal.

• Trial: Openshaw J presided over the separate murder trials. Goodall, Walters and Wilson were convicted of murder and received life sentences with minimum terms of 16, 20 and 18 years respectively.