R v Shea Williams

Under section 101(1)(d) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, gang-affiliation evidence may be relevant to an important matter in issue, including identification, even where the alleged offence has no gang-related motive. The risk of unfair prejudice may be addressed by careful directions to the jury. Where strong independent circumstantial evidence supports identification and possession, the conviction may remain safe despite admission of the evidence.

Following a retrial at the Crown Court at Isleworth, the applicant was convicted of attempted murder and firearms offences. The prosecution had relied on evidence concerning his association with the Church Road Soldiers gang, admitted as bad character evidence under section 101(1)(d) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The single judge refused leave to appeal. The applicant renewed his application, arguing that the gang evidence was irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial. The central issue was whether its admission rendered the convictions unsafe.

1. The renewed application for leave to appeal was dismissed. The court refused a late adjournment request because it was made shortly before the hearing, more than eight months after the renewal application, and identified no specific new issue.
2. The trial judge had correctly applied the law and the principles in Lewis [2015] EWCA Crim 48. Under section 101(1)(d) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, the relevant important matter in issue was whether the applicant had been correctly identified as present at the shooting. Evidence of his association with the gang was clearly relevant to that issue, notwithstanding the absence of evidence that the shooting itself was gang-related.
3. The trial judge was entitled to conclude that careful directions could address the risk of an unfairly prejudicial effect. No complaint was made about those directions. The differing jury outcomes concerning the co-defendants supported the conclusion that the directions had been followed.
4. In any event, the circumstantial evidence was very strong. It placed the applicant’s phone and car at the scene and gunshot residue consistent with one of the weapons was found in a hidden compartment in his car. The conviction was therefore unarguably safe.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction was dismissed under [2024] EWCA Crim 1188.
• Single judge: Refused leave to appeal against conviction.
• Crown Court at Isleworth: Following retrial, convicted the applicant of attempted murder and firearms offences.