Solloway & Anor

Prosecution advocates must avoid ethnic stereotyping and theatrical treatment of a criminal trial. Inappropriate advocacy will not make a conviction unsafe where the judge gives a clear and effective corrective direction and the evidence establishes the safety of the verdict.

Directions on conspiracy must be assessed in their factual context. A judge must consider leaving duress where the evidence raises it, even if it is not advanced by the defence. An erroneous explanation of the release consequences of an extended sentence does not itself require alteration of a lawful and proportionate sentence.

At the Crown Court at Chester, before HHJ Hale, Karine Solloway and Kimpton Mativenga were convicted of conspiracy to rob. Paul Prior and another defendant had pleaded guilty to that offence. The conspiracy concerned a planned night-time robbery at an occupied house, in which the occupants were restrained and property was stolen.

Solloway sought leave to appeal against conviction and sentence. Her conviction challenge concerned the prosecution closing speech. Mativenga sought leave to appeal against conviction on grounds relating to conspiracy directions, duress, the treatment of evidence, and alleged trial irregularities. Prior sought an extension of time to renew his sentence application and challenged his extended sentence, including the judge’s explanation of its release consequences.

1. The court granted Prior an extension of time, but refused all applications for leave to appeal against conviction or sentence.

2. The prosecution closing speech improperly linked Russian identity with bloodshed and treated the trial as fictional melodrama. Such advocacy was unacceptable. However, the judge’s firm directions against emotion and stereotyping, together with his rebuke of counsel’s rhetorical approach and the strong evidence against Solloway, removed any realistic risk of prejudice. Her conviction was safe.

3. The directions on Mativenga’s alleged participation in the conspiracy were adequate in context. The real question was whether he agreed in advance to take part in the robbery or, after appreciating its nature in the house, knowingly assisted it. The judge was entitled to leave duress after Mativenga said that fear of Prior explained any assistance. That issue required consideration notwithstanding that the defence had not advanced duress. The absence of advance warning to counsel, the oral misstatement later corrected by written directions, and the lack of a route to verdict did not render the conviction unsafe.

4. The court criticised the introduction of a prosecution witness’s old conviction without an advance application under section 100 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The point should have been raised before the jury heard the question. The irregularity was nevertheless peripheral and did not affect the safety of Mativenga’s conviction.

5. Solloway was properly sentenced by reference to a category 1A dwelling robbery. She intended an occupied-house robbery involving at least threats of violence, in a planned operation targeting high-value goods. The judge had given substantial personal mitigation and the ten-year sentence was not excessive.

6. Prior’s ten-year custodial term and three-year extension period were lawful and proportionate. Under section 246A of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, a prisoner serving an extended sentence with a custodial term of ten years or more becomes eligible for release after two-thirds, but release depends on the Parole Board. The judge’s incorrect description of automatic release did not justify reducing a sentence that was neither wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive. R v B [2015] EWCA Crim 1295 did not establish a general rule requiring adjustment in those circumstances.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Granted Prior an extension of time, but refused Solloway’s and Mativenga’s applications for leave to appeal against conviction, and refused Solloway’s and Prior’s applications for leave to appeal against sentence.
• Crown Court at Chester On 14 November 2017, Solloway and Mativenga were convicted of conspiracy to rob. On 8 December 2017, HHJ Hale sentenced Solloway to ten years’ imprisonment, Mativenga to six-and-a-half years’ imprisonment, and Prior to an extended sentence comprising ten years’ custody and a three-year extension period.