Harry Oni & Ors v R

The decision concerns leave to appeal, not the merits of the convictions. A proposed ground should proceed where it is arguable that the conviction may be unsafe, and time may be extended in the interests of justice. Under section 1 of the Criminal Law Act 1977, it was arguable that conspiracies to murder and to cause grievous bodily harm with intent might constitute separate agreements where the alleged intentions differed. The question was reserved for the full appeal. The court also confirmed that business-record hearsay may be admitted where the statutory conditions are met, and that fresh evidence requires a reasonable explanation for its non-production at trial.

Seven applicants were convicted at Manchester Crown Court in 2021, after a jury trial before Goose J, of conspiracy to murder or conspiracy to cause grievous bodily harm with intent. The convictions arose from alleged retaliatory violence between rival groups following the murder of a young man. Several applicants had also pleaded guilty to violent disorder.

The applicants sought extensions of time and leave to appeal against conviction. Three applicants also sought leave to appeal against sentence. The grounds concerned the legal structure of the alleged conspiracies, the use of guilty pleas, directions under section 34 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, hearsay and gang-related evidence, identification evidence, fresh evidence and the sentencing treatment of conduct by other alleged conspirators.

The court extended time where necessary, granted leave to appeal on specified grounds, and refused leave on all other grounds. The substantive conviction appeals and the sentence appeals for Mr Adedeji, Mr Savi and Mr Okoya were to be heard by the full court.

1. Conspiracy. The wording of section 1 of the Criminal Law Act 1977 and the conventional requirement that conspirators share the same intention made it arguable that an agreement to take revenge with intent to kill and an agreement to cause grievous bodily harm with intent were separate conspiracies. The court referred to R v Barnard (1980) 70 Cr App R 28. R v Crothers [2000] NI 55 and R v Mehta [2012] EWCA Crim 2824 did not establish that a conspiracy to murder was the same agreement as a separate conspiracy to cause grievous bodily harm. The underlying question was reserved for the full appeal.
2. If the conspiracies were distinct, it was arguable that acts of persons convicted of the conspiracy to murder could not be used to prove or sentence defendants convicted of the separate grievous-bodily-harm conspiracy. The court also granted leave on the clarity and permissible use of the guilty pleas to count 2.
3. The section 34 direction was arguably insufficient because it did not identify the specific facts allegedly omitted in interview. Although that point alone might not have rendered the convictions unsafe, it was arguable in the context of the conspiracy issue and the collective treatment of the applicants.
4. Leave was granted on fresh identification evidence because a witness statement offered a possible explanation for its absence at trial. Its credibility and admissibility remained for the full court under section 23(d) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968. Leave was also granted on whether photographs showing cash by the ear were sufficiently probative of group membership rather than imitation of celebrity culture.
5. Leave was refused on the hearsay challenge. The college statement was admissible as a business record under section 117 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, having been created for the college’s own purposes, by persons acting in their occupation, and in circumstances involving personal knowledge or reasonably supposed knowledge. The court also rejected the arguments under sections 117(6) and 117(7).
6. The remaining challenges, including those concerning circumstantial-evidence directions, withdrawal from conspiracy, drill lyrics, gang evidence and Convention rights, did not disclose arguable grounds. R v Bassett [2020] EWCA Crim 1376 did not require a particular form of words for the jury direction. The use of threats and communications as evidence did not infringe the applicants’ Convention rights.

The parties were directed to prepare final grounds, respondent’s notices, transcripts, authorities and statutory materials for a two-day hearing. Reporting restrictions continued until conclusion of the appeals or any retrial.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — [2024] EWCA Crim 893: extensions of time were granted where required; leave to appeal against conviction was granted on specified grounds and refused on the remainder; leave to appeal against sentence was granted to Mr Adedeji, Mr Savi and Mr Okoya.
2. Manchester Crown Court — before Goose J and a jury: convictions were entered on 17 May 2021 for conspiracy to murder or conspiracy to cause grievous bodily harm with intent, following a trial lasting approximately eight weeks.