R v Marvin Edokpolo & Anor

Gang-related evidence may be admitted where it is relevant to motive or to whether communications between defendants were innocent, provided the statutory gateways and trial fairness requirements are satisfied. A witness may give expert evidence about gang rivalry and association where the trial judge is entitled to find that the witness has sufficient relevant expertise; formal training or lengthy service is not essential on the facts. A conviction is not unsafe merely because the judge comments on an evidential gap, if the defence case has been fairly put and the comment does not undermine the issue for the jury. On sentence, disparity between co-defendants is not decisive. An appellate court gives weight to the trial judge’s superior knowledge of the evidence and may uphold a severe sentence unless it is manifestly excessive.

Marvin Edokpolo renewed applications for leave to appeal against his conviction for attempted murder and his sentence of 22 years and three months’ detention. Joshua Alexander appealed against the minimum term of 28 years and eight days imposed following convictions for murder, attempted murders and other offences.

Both matters arose from proceedings before the Crown Court at Snaresbrook and the Central Criminal Court. Edokpolo challenged the admission of gang evidence, the expertise of a police witness, a summing-up comment and the safety of his conviction. He also challenged sentence disparity. Alexander challenged the uplift applied to the sentence for murder and the overall minimum term, relying in part on his age, developmental difficulties and background. The central issues were whether the conviction was unsafe and whether either sentence was manifestly excessive.

The court refused Edokpolo’s renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction. It granted leave to appeal against sentence, but dismissed the appeal. It dismissed Alexander’s appeal against sentence and extended legal aid for his solicitor’s attendance and subsequent communications.

1. Gang evidence and expertise. The trial judge was entitled to find that PC Wright was capable of giving expert evidence about the rivalry between the gangs. His experience in the Hackney Integrated Gangs Unit provided sufficient expertise on the issue. The court considered Myers v The Queen [2015] UKPC 40; [2016] AC 314 in the context of that assessment. Evidence of Edokpolo’s gang association was relevant to the alleged motive and to whether his communications with the other defendants were innocent. It was therefore admissible under sections 98 and 101(1)(d) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, subject to fairness safeguards.
2. The evidence concerning Edokpolo’s caution and conviction was also properly admitted. The jury could assess it fairly, and the summing-up did not suggest that it could support conviction by itself. The evidence and the judge’s comment about the absence of evidence on simultaneous Snapchat and telephone calls did not make the conviction unsafe. The arguments under section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and section 101(3) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 therefore failed.
3. Edokpolo’s sentence. The judge’s finding that he had communicated that the attack was to proceed was supported by the evidence and was consistent with his coordinating role. Although disparity with the sentences of co-defendants was arguable, the trial judge was best placed to assess culpability. Edokpolo’s coordinating role, previous convictions and greater age justified the difference. The sentence was severe but not manifestly excessive.
4. Alexander’s sentence. The court considered his chronological and developmental age, suggestibility, possible trafficking background, gang motivation and the seriousness and totality of the offending. The trial judge was best placed to assess the fair and proportionate sentence. The uplift for the murder and the overall minimum term could not be characterised as manifestly excessive.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): [2025] EWCA Crim 1534. Edokpolo’s renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction was refused. Leave to appeal against sentence was granted, but the appeal was dismissed. Alexander’s sentence appeal was dismissed.
• Crown Court at Snaresbrook: Edokpolo was convicted of attempted murder and sentenced to 22 years and three months’ detention.
• Central Criminal Court: Alexander was convicted of murder, attempted murders and other offences and received a minimum term of 28 years and eight days’ detention during His Majesty’s pleasure.