Hamilton & Ors, R. v

A single previous conviction may demonstrate propensity where its circumstances have probative force in relation to an important issue, even without striking factual similarity. In sentencing young offenders for murder and associated serious offences, the minimum term for murder should reflect the offending as a whole, with concurrent sentences for associated offences. Gang-related planning, weapons, multiple victims and danger to the public may justify a substantial increase, but youth, immaturity, secondary participation and absence of an intention to kill require meaningful weight.

The defendants were convicted at the Central Criminal Court after the murder of Kamali Gabbidon-Lynck, the wounding of Jason Fraser and related weapons offences arising from a gang-related attack. Hamilton and Lyons renewed applications for permission to appeal against conviction. Graham renewed an application for leave to appeal against sentence, while Hamilton, Lyons and O’Neill-Crichlow appealed against sentence.

The conviction applications concerned the admission of Hamilton’s previous bladed-article conviction and the fairness of Lyons’s cross-examination. The sentence appeals concerned statutory errors, the appropriate minimum terms for defendants aged 16 at the time of the offences, and the significance of their secondary-party roles and lack of intention to kill.

1. Conviction applications. Hamilton’s renewed application for permission to appeal was refused. His previous conviction for possession of a bladed article was admissible as evidence capable of showing propensity and as rebuttal of his account that the knife had been handed to him only at a late stage. A single conviction may have probative force where it bears directly on an important issue; factual identity between the earlier and charged conduct is unnecessary. The court applied the approach in Hanson [2005] 1 WLR 3169.
2. Lyons’s renewed application for permission to appeal was also refused. The ground rules for questioning a young witness had been substantially observed. The cross-examination was courteous, appropriately controlled and neither oppressive nor unfair.
3. Sentence appeals. The record was amended to show that the concurrent sentences for wounding were imposed under section 91 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000. Section 91 was unavailable for the bladed-article offences. Those sentences were quashed and no separate penalty was substituted.
4. For a defendant convicted of murder and associated serious offences, the minimum term for murder should reflect the appropriate penalty for the offences as a whole under section 269 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, with concurrent sentences for the other offences. A 30-year statutory starting point would have been justified for adult offenders because of the particularly high seriousness, weapons taken to the scene, the firearm discharge and the ferocious attack on Fraser. The court did not decide whether the murder legally involved use of a firearm.
5. Graham’s renewed application was refused. For Hamilton, Lyons and O’Neill-Crichlow, the minimum terms of 21 years were quashed and replaced with 19 years. Their youth, immaturity, secondary-party roles and absence of an intention to kill required greater allowance, although the gang-related planning, weapons, public danger, multiple victims and severity of the offending made the resulting sentences severe but appropriate. The court applied Davies [2020] EWCA Crim 921 as a relevant comparator, while recognising that the present case involved additional serious offending.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): the defendants had been convicted and sentenced at the Central Criminal Court. The court refused Hamilton’s and Lyons’s renewed conviction applications and Graham’s renewed sentence application. It corrected the statutory basis of the wounding sentences, quashed the bladed-article sentences, and reduced the minimum terms for Hamilton, Lyons and O’Neill-Crichlow from 21 years to 19 years.