R v Remi Loader & Anor

On a submission of no case to answer, the court must consider whether, assuming the evidence capable of acceptance by the jury, a properly directed jury could safely reach the relevant conclusion. For attempted murder, evidence of a planned, targeted attack with lethal weapons, disguised identities and the nature and extent of the assault may support an inference of intent to kill. The issue should remain with the jury unless competing arguments are sufficiently compelling to require withdrawal. Evidence relevant to identification may be admissible even if it does not prove identity by itself. Clear judicial directions may cure potential prejudice from evidence which the jury is told to disregard.

Following a trial in the Crown Court at Cambridge, Remi Loader and Jacob Montique were convicted of attempted murder, wounding with intent and possessing an offensive weapon. Their co-defendant was acquitted. The appellants renewed applications for leave to appeal after refusal by a single judge.

They challenged the admission and effect of motive evidence, evidence concerning weapons and protective clothing, and other potentially prejudicial identification material. They also argued that there was no case to answer on intent to kill and that the convictions were unsafe. The central questions were whether the evidence sufficiently identified the appellants as the attackers and whether it permitted a properly directed jury to find an intent to kill.

1. Disposition. The renewed applications for leave to appeal were refused. The convictions were safe.
2. Identification. Evidence concerning the earlier collision was relevant primarily to identification because, together with other evidence, it supplied a potential motive for Loader to attack Gaskin. It was not unfair to leave the evidence to the jury. Evidence of ammonia, a combat knife, a stab vest and a bag associated with a stab vest was capable of supporting the prosecution case, although none of those items proved identity alone. The identification case was independently supported by movements, CCTV timings and locations, phone evidence and associated circumstances.
3. Evidence suggesting that further CCTV existed was neutralised by a clear judicial direction that unsupported claims must be ignored. The prosecution was entitled to reconsider and withdraw reliance on Ogbonna’s identification evidence. The judge’s direction to disregard it was sufficient to dispel any risk of prejudice.
4. Intent to kill. For the no-case submission, the relevant question was not merely whether the evidence was consistent with an intention to kill. It was whether a properly directed jury could be sure that, taken as a whole, the evidence was definitively probative of that intention. The Court agreed with the reasoning of the single judge and upheld the trial judge’s fully reasoned ruling.
5. The jury could infer intent from a jointly planned, sudden and targeted attack with lethal weapons and concealed identities, together with the nature and extent of the attacks. The fact that planning, wound location, the failure to achieve death or the assailants’ departure could support competing inferences provided matters for the jury. Those arguments were not sufficiently compelling to require withdrawal of the issue.
6. The applications were therefore refused and the convictions on the attempted-murder counts were safe.

• Crown Court at Cambridge: On 27 April 2022, Loader and Montique were convicted of attempted murder, wounding with intent and possessing an offensive weapon. Their co-defendant was acquitted.
• Single judge: Applications for leave to appeal were refused.
• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The renewed applications were refused.