Sakeem Gordon v R

A conviction for conspiracy to rob does not require proof that the defendant used or participated in the use of force. Where the evidence proving the conspiracy is extensive, independent of the evidence relevant to murder, and sufficient to establish knowing participation, quashing the murder conviction does not make the conspiracy conviction unsafe. While an appeal remains on foot, the Court of Appeal retains power under section 3 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 to substitute manslaughter for murder where the facts support that verdict. Substitution may avoid a retrial where manslaughter was available to the jury.

Following a trial at the Crown Court at St Albans, Sakeem Gordon was convicted of murder and conspiracy to rob. The Court of Appeal previously allowed his appeal against the murder conviction and quashed it: [2025] EWCA Crim 1045. At a further hearing, the court considered whether the conspiracy conviction was also unsafe because evidence from a principal witness was said to have been integral to both counts. It also considered whether, instead of ordering a retrial for murder, it could substitute a conviction for manslaughter under section 3 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968.

The court declined to quash the conspiracy to rob conviction and substituted a verdict of manslaughter for murder.

1. Safety of the conspiracy conviction. The murder conviction had been quashed because the jury’s verdict could reasonably be understood as finding that only those present in the bedroom were guilty of murder, and the principal evidence placing Gordon there came from Tianna Edwards-Hancock. That evidence was not essential to the conspiracy count. The evidence supporting conspiracy was extensive, wide-ranging and independent, and the jury had convicted other defendants of conspiracy while acquitting them of murder.
2. Force was not required. The Crown did not have to prove that Gordon actually used or participated in the use of force as a prerequisite to conviction for conspiracy to rob. The jury could infer the agreement and Gordon’s knowing participation from the guilty pleas of two co-defendants, telephone evidence, Gordon’s relationship with the conspirators, his own account of learning that the property was to be robbed, his concealed face, his conduct at the flat, communications after the robbery and subsequent attempts to avoid detection.
3. Substitution of manslaughter. The parties accepted that, if the conspiracy conviction remained safe, Gohel’s death occurred during the commission of an unlawful act and manslaughter was available. Because the appeal proceedings remained ongoing and no order had been recorded in the Crown Court, the court retained its power under section 3 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968. It therefore substituted manslaughter rather than directing a retrial of the murder count.
4. There would be no retrial. The reporting restriction imposed on 31 July 2025 lapsed, and sentencing was reserved to the Court of Appeal.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — At the further hearing giving rise to this judgment, upheld the conspiracy to rob conviction and substituted manslaughter for murder.
• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — In [2025] EWCA Crim 1045, allowed Gordon’s appeal and quashed his murder conviction.
• Crown Court at St Albans — Convicted Gordon of murder and conspiracy to rob.