RAJAE HESLOP & Ors v REGINA

Gang-related evidence may be admissible to prove identity, motive and common purpose where it forms part of the alleged facts of the offence. The prosecution need not prove a specific trigger event unless its case depends on one.

Under Criminal Justice Act 2003, evidence alleged to supply a motive for the charged offence may have a broad connection with its facts. It is not rendered inadmissible by the absence of a temporal requirement.

An inadvertent admission of inadmissible material does not necessarily make a conviction unsafe. A prompt, clear and comprehensive direction can cure the error where the material is not used further and the jury can understand why it must be ignored.

The appellants were convicted at the Central Criminal Court before Judge Poulet QC of murder and attempted murder arising from a shooting in which one victim died and another was injured.

The prosecution alleged that the shooting formed part of rivalry between the Stone City Gunners/Greyset gang and the Queensbury Boys. It relied on gang association, gang culture, lyrics, notes, telephone material, CCTV and DNA evidence to establish identity, motive and a joint plan.

On appeal, the appellants challenged the admission of the gang evidence. They contended that there was no sufficiently proved gang feud or trigger event. They also contended that a mistakenly admitted 2020 recording about gang hostility made the trial unfair. The central issues were whether the gang evidence was admissible and whether the judge’s direction to disregard the recording cured the error.

The appeals were dismissed. The convictions were safe.

1. Evidence of a gang feud was capable of assisting the jury on identity. It could support the prosecution case that the appellants had a motive to target persons perceived to belong to a rival group, and it could reinforce other incriminating evidence. The court applied the proper reading of R v Myers [2015] UKPC 40: a trigger event must be proved only where it is a necessary component of the prosecution case. It is not a general precondition to the admission of gang evidence.

2. The gang evidence was admissible under section 98(a) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The statutory words have a broad application. Evidence alleged to provide the motive for the charged offences may have to do with their alleged facts, without any necessary temporal qualification. On the prosecution case, the shooting was a vital event in an ongoing feud between the two gangs. The evidence was therefore part of the factual context of the offences, rather than inadmissible bad-character evidence. The judge had also directed the jury appropriately that gang association alone did not establish guilt.

3. The mistakenly admitted recording did not render the trial unfair. The error was identified immediately. None of the appellants was mentioned, the recording duplicated other evidence about gang rivalry, and it was made 20 months after the shooting. The judge gave a clear direction that both the recording and its police interpretation were to be ignored, and the transcripts were withdrawn. There was no further use of the material. The jury could understand and follow the direction.

The later clarification that an alleged retaliatory shooting might have involved another group was an ordinary development in the evidence and did not undermine the safety of the verdicts.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — Dismissed the appellants’ conviction appeals and held that the verdicts were safe: [2022] EWCA Crim 897.
• Central Criminal Court — On 19 March 2021, Judge Poulet QC and a jury convicted the appellants of murder and attempted murder.