R v Ramesh Kumaraguru & Ors

On a submission of no case to answer founded on identification evidence, the court must assess the evidence as a whole. It must withdraw the case where there is no evidence, or where the prosecution evidence at its highest is so tenuous that no properly directed jury could convict. Where the assessment turns on witness reliability, credibility or competing views of the facts, the matter is ordinarily for the jury.

Fresh evidence under Criminal Appeal Act 1968 section 23 may be refused where there is no reasonable explanation for its absence at trial and the evidence is incapable of belief. A sentencing appeal will fail where the judge was entitled to assess aggravating and mitigating features, apply totality, and impose a sentence that is not manifestly excessive.

The applicants were convicted at the Crown Court at Isleworth after two linked violent incidents on 26 August 2020. Godwin, Ravichandran and Nabaratnarajah were convicted of attempted aggravated burglary. Godwin and Kumaraguru were also convicted of wounding with intent.

Godwin and Kumaraguru sought leave to appeal against conviction, principally contending that the identification evidence was too weak to leave to the jury. Godwin also sought to adduce fresh evidence concerning a vehicle connected with the first incident. Godwin, Ravichandran and Nabaratnarajah challenged sentence, and Nabaratnarajah sought a substantial extension of time to appeal.

The central questions were whether the trial judge should have stopped the identification cases, whether Godwin's new evidence was admissible, and whether the sentences were manifestly excessive.

1. All applications were refused. The court refused Godwin's application to adduce fresh evidence, refused Godwin's and Kumaraguru's applications for leave to appeal against conviction, refused the applications for leave to appeal against sentence, and refused Nabaratnarajah's application for an extension of time.

2. The trial judge correctly applied the no-case-to-answer approach. The court had to assess the evidence as a whole. A case should be withdrawn only where there is no evidence capable of supporting conviction, or where the evidence is so weak that no properly directed jury could convict. Concerns about the reliability of visual and voice identification, the opportunity to observe, lighting, recognition, and inconsistencies were matters for the jury where the evidence remained capable of supporting conviction.

3. There was no arguable error in leaving the cases against Godwin and Kumaraguru to the jury. The judge had carefully considered the identification evidence and the defence submissions. The evidence included identification, circumstances linking the two incidents, the video material, early naming of suspects, and, in Godwin's case, fingerprint evidence on the BMW. The alibi-notice direction was factually justified and properly framed.

4. Godwin's proposed fresh evidence was refused under section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968. There was no reasonable explanation for failing to obtain it at trial. In any event, its asserted chronology was irreconcilable with the police seizure of the relevant vehicle, so it was incapable of belief.

5. The sentencing challenges disclosed no arguable excess. The judge was entitled to reflect both the attempted nature of the burglary and the serious aggravating features of violent, armed, group offending at a home at night. He was also entitled to classify the wounding injuries as grave, apply totality to Godwin's concurrent sentences, and give Ravichandran a lower sentence for his age, maturity, role and personal mitigation. The resulting sentences were not manifestly excessive.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In [2025] EWCA Crim 146, the court refused the applicants' renewed applications for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence. It also refused Godwin's application to adduce fresh evidence and Nabaratnarajah's application for an extension of time.

• Crown Court at Isleworth: On 17 July 2023, Godwin, Ravichandran and Nabaratnarajah were convicted of attempted aggravated burglary; Godwin and Kumaraguru were convicted of wounding with intent. Sentences were imposed on 13 October 2023.