Harry Oni & Ors v R

Under section 1 of the Criminal Law Act 1977, conspiracy is founded on a shared unlawful agreement and the requisite intention. An agreement to take violent revenge with an intention either to kill or to cause grievous bodily harm comprises two distinct conspiracies, even where they share a course of conduct and facts.

Acts and statements of a conspirator are admissible against another conspirator only in respect of the conspiracy to which both were parties. A section 34 direction should identify the facts said to have been omitted in interview and the proposed inferences, although a defective direction does not make a conviction unsafe unless it caused unfairness.

Seven appellants challenged convictions arising from agreements formed after the murder of John Soyoye. Three had been convicted of conspiracy to murder and four of conspiracy to cause grievous bodily harm with intent. Three appellants also challenged sentence.

The appeals raised the correct analysis of the alleged agreements, the use of guilty pleas and co-conspirators’ statements, a section 34 direction, the admission and use of gang-affiliation evidence, and the effect of fresh identification evidence. The central questions were whether the convictions were safe and, if so, whether the sentences imposed on the lesser participants were wrong in principle or manifestly excessive.

1. Conviction appeals. The court dismissed the conviction appeals except that of Mr Adedeji. Section 1 of the Criminal Law Act 1977 requires an agreement to pursue a course of conduct which, if carried out as intended, necessarily involves an offence. A common design must be shared, rather than merely similar or parallel.

   An agreement to take violent revenge with an intention either to kill or intentionally to cause grievous bodily harm could not constitute one undifferentiated conspiracy. It comprised two separate, overlapping conspiracies. On these facts, however, those who intended to kill necessarily also intended to cause grievous bodily harm on the way to killing. The two-count indictment was therefore valid, and the guilty pleas to the lesser conspiracy remained admissible evidence of its existence.

2. Acts and statements made in furtherance of one conspiracy could not prove the intention of persons party only to the other. The judge’s direction treated the two conspiracies as one and was legally inaccurate. It did not render the convictions unsafe because the verdicts showed that the jury had not used murder-intention evidence indiscriminately, and the remaining evidence was admissible against the relevant defendants.

3. The section 34 direction should have identified, for each defendant, the facts said not to have been mentioned in interview and the inferences sought. The omission was erroneous, but did not cause unfairness or undermine conviction safety on the facts.

4. The cash-to-the-ear photographs were properly admitted. Where gang membership or affiliation is disputed, conduct said to be a group-recognition practice may be relevant even if it also appears in wider celebrity culture. The jury had to decide its meaning on the evidence, subject to the careful direction that gang affiliation and drug dealing could not alone prove guilt.

5. Fresh evidence established that the officer’s identification of Mr Adedeji in a video clip was wrong. The identification had been part of the prosecution case and his truthful denial might have damaged his credibility before the jury. His conviction was unsafe and was quashed. Although there was otherwise a case to answer, no retrial was ordered because he had already served the period that an appropriate sentence would have required.

6. Sentence appeals. The court allowed the appeals of Mr Savi and Mr Okoya. The judge had treated them as participants in the later violent attacks. Their short-lived planning role and absence from the attacks instead placed them in a lesser role in group activity, with category 2 harm. Their eight-year sentences were quashed and replaced with detention in a Young Offender Institution for four years and six months, subject to the applicable remand and curfew credit.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Conviction appeals dismissed except for Mr Adedeji, whose conviction was quashed without retrial. Sentence appeals allowed for Mr Savi and Mr Okoya, whose sentences were substituted.
• Manchester Crown Court: Before Goose J, the appellants were convicted after trial of conspiracy to murder or conspiracy to cause grievous bodily harm with intent. Mr Savi and Mr Okoya received eight years’ detention in a Young Offender Institution.