Rashid, R v

Gang-association evidence may be admissible as bad-character evidence where it is relevant to an important issue, including whether a defendant’s association with a vehicle containing weapons was innocent and whether the defendant had access to firearms with the necessary intent.

A jury must be sure of gang membership before relying on that evidence. Membership does not itself establish violence or guilt, and the jury should not convict on gang evidence alone. Where it is admitted, clear, written and timely directions should identify its limited relevance and guard against prejudice.

A police officer with appropriate expertise may give opinion evidence about gang practices and association, including by drawing on unidentified sources. A tailored Turnbull direction should be considered where identification is disputed, but an imperfect direction will not make a conviction unsafe where the evidence as a whole is compelling.

Following a jury trial at the Crown Court at Snaresbrook, Hafedh Rashid, Kevin Tshoma and KS were convicted of conspiracy to possess firearms with intent to endanger life, possession of ammunition without a certificate, and offences concerning a machete and a baseball bat.

The prosecution alleged that the appellants were associated with the ACG or Beckton Boys gang, and that weapons were stored in a Volkswagen Golf for gang-related violence. It relied on police gang-expert evidence, videos, material from KS’s telephone, covert recordings, and observations of the appellants’ conduct.

The appellants appealed against conviction. Their principal complaint concerned the admission and use of gang-related evidence. Further issues concerned expert evidence, directions on covert recordings and identification, and directions on the elements of the offences.

1. The appeals against conviction were dismissed. The trial judge’s direction on the use of gang evidence was deficient, but the convictions remained safe when the evidence was considered as a whole.

2. There was no proper basis to challenge the admission of the gang-association evidence. It was capable of being bad-character evidence admissible under Criminal Justice Act 2003, because it was relevant to important issues between the prosecution and each defendant. It could rebut an innocent explanation for the appellants’ presence and association with the vehicle containing weapons. It could also assist on whether they had links to, access to, and the required intent concerning firearms.

3. The jury should have been directed more precisely about those uses. They should also have been told not to convict on gang evidence alone. The direction nevertheless required the jury to be sure of gang membership, made clear that membership did not prove violence or the charged offences, and warned against prejudice. The court further stated that, in a case of this kind, draft and written legal directions should ordinarily be discussed with counsel, legal directions should sensibly precede speeches, and a route to verdict should be available from the beginning of the summing-up.

4. The court rejected the remaining complaints. An appropriately qualified police officer could give expert evidence about gang practices, association and language, including through expertise informed by unidentified sources: Myers v Queen [2015] UKSC 40. The cell-recording direction was adequate in context. The directions on conspiracy and intent were sufficient. The direction concerning offensive weapons was also sufficient.

5. A tailored Turnbull [1977] QB 224 direction should always be considered where identification or recognition is disputed. Here, although the warning did not expressly state that confident police recognition could be mistaken, three officers identified KS, the jury could view the clip, and KS was before them. The omission did not undermine safety.

6. The remaining evidence was powerful. It included conduct consistent with handling stored firearms, forensic evidence, gang evidence, recordings, and equipment consistent with a planned armed expedition. The identified summing-up error therefore did not render any conviction unsafe.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The appellants’ appeals against conviction were dismissed.
• Crown Court at Snaresbrook: Before Her Honour Judge Hughes QC and a jury, the appellants were convicted of firearms, ammunition and offensive-weapon offences.