Dixon-Kenton, R. v

Gang-related evidence may be admitted as evidence of motive where it is relevant, probative and sufficiently connected to the offence. Evidence of events said to have created motive is not subject to a separate temporal requirement if it is reasonably relied upon for that purpose.

An expert may give general evidence about gang culture and affiliation. However, an assertion that a particular person belonged to a gang must rest on admissible, testable evidence and meet the applicable statutory requirements. Relevant gang evidence should be excluded under PACE 1984 only where its admission would adversely affect the fairness of the proceedings.

The appellant, then aged 17, was convicted at Woolwich Crown Court of the murder of Solomon Small and was detained during His Majesty’s pleasure with a minimum term of 14 years.

He admitted stabbing Small but relied on self-defence, lack of intent and loss of control. The prosecution contended that the killing arose from a feud between rival gang factions and that evidence of gang affiliation and of the earlier killing of John Ogunjobi supplied a motive.

With leave of the single judge, the appellant appealed against conviction. He challenged the admission and fairness of the gang evidence, the Crown’s failure to put the alleged motive to him in cross-examination, and disclosure concerning the earlier killing and Small’s gang affiliation.

1. Appeal dismissed. The court held that the conviction was safe after rejecting every ground of appeal.

2. Police officers may be qualified to give expert evidence on gang culture, language and practices. Expertise in that general field does not itself entitle an officer to assert that a particular person belongs to a gang. That conclusion must be founded on admissible evidence capable of challenge. PC Barr’s expertise was not realistically disputed, and the evidence identifying the appellant’s association with the Roupell Park gang was capable of being tested by the jury.

3. The gang evidence was relevant evidence of motive and was therefore evidence to do with the facts of the case under section 98 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The evidence could undermine the defences of self-defence, lack of intent and loss of control. The earlier killing of John Ogunjobi was not too remote. Following the approach in R v Sule [2012] EWCA 1130, events reasonably relied upon as creating motive need no additional temporal qualification. There was admissible evidence from which the jury could find the relevant gang affiliations, feud and motive.

4. The trial judge was entitled to conclude that the evidence was fair to admit under section 78 of PACE 1984. The prosecution had confined the material, excluding the wider history of gang violence, and the defence could answer the evidence. The jury retained responsibility for deciding what weight, if any, to give it.

5. The Crown should have put the revenge-motive allegation to the appellant. The omission did not render the conviction unsafe because his denials of gang membership and his detailed account were clear, and the judge dealt with the point properly in summing up. The disclosure complaint also failed: the court had no reason to doubt the prosecution’s stated compliance with its duty.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): dismissed the appeal against conviction in [2021] EWCA Crim 673.
• Crown Court at Woolwich: the appellant was convicted of murder on 10 March 2020 and, on 25 June 2020, detained during His Majesty’s pleasure with a minimum term of 14 years less time on remand.