Toluwaslase Odunewu & Ors v R

In a joint-enterprise case involving a spontaneous outbreak of armed violence, whether a defendant intentionally assisted or encouraged the principal, and with what intent, is ordinarily for the jury on the whole body of evidence. The fact that a secondary party was not beside the victim at the moment of the fatal or wounding act does not, without more, justify stopping the case. The jury may infer conditional intent from evidence that an armed group gathered, remained together and became involved in violence, but the evidence must still be assessed separately against each defendant. Fresh psychiatric evidence on appeal may be refused where it offers no realistic defence and is contradicted by contemporaneous evidence.

Four appellants were convicted at the Central Criminal Court of violent disorder, murder and related offences arising from two incidents in Dagenham on 3 and 5 May 2023. Three had pleaded guilty to possessing bladed articles; one was convicted of that offence at trial. The prosecution case was that the four acted as secondary parties to the murder of Jordan Kukabu and the wounding with intent of Matthew Adekoya.

The appellants renewed conviction appeals or applications for leave, including challenges to joinder, submissions of no case to answer, the summing-up and directions on self-defence. Ethan Dedman also sought to introduce fresh psychiatric evidence under section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968. Sentence appeals concerned the minimum terms imposed for murder and the treatment of the additional offences.

1. Convictions. The applications for leave to appeal conviction were refused. The judge was entitled to join the offences. Under section 4 of the Indictments Act 1915 and rule 3.29(4) of the Criminal Procedure Rules 2020, the incidents had a sufficient nexus: they were close in time and place, involved the same group carrying the same knives, and involved threatened or actual violence between groups arriving by car.
2. Applying Galbraith (1981) 73 Cr.App.R 124, the judge was right to leave the murder and wounding counts to the jury. The evidence, taken at its highest, enabled a properly directed jury to find that the four appellants acted as a group, took different roles and intended that one or more occupants of the BMW should suffer at least really serious injury. The principle in Jogee [2016] UKSC 8 applies to a spontaneous outbreak of multi-handed violence: liability depends on intentional assistance or encouragement, conditional or otherwise, and not necessarily on an agreement.
3. Whether each secondary party assisted or encouraged the principal, and with what intention, had to be determined from the whole evidence. The location of a defendant at the precise moment of the stabbing, and the absence of evidence of words of encouragement, were matters for the jury. Separating the evidence by moment and individual was inappropriate on a half-time submission. Only clear evidence that a member had left or taken no part would ordinarily make such a submission likely to succeed. The materially different facts in Childs and Price [2015] EWCA Crim 665 did not assist the appellants.
4. The summing-up was fair. No separate direction was required on a secondary party’s own belief that the principal’s defensive conduct was necessary and reasonable because no defendant had advanced that case in evidence or interview. The fresh psychiatric evidence was refused under section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968. It offered no prospect of establishing diminished responsibility on the balance of probabilities and was materially contradicted by contemporaneous expert evidence and the appellant’s rational account at trial. The murder conviction was not unsafe.
5. Sentences. The sentence appeals were allowed in part. The minimum terms were reduced before remand deductions: Michael Tommy-Mbogba’s from 29 to 27 years, Jamal Trotman’s from 23 to 20 years, and Ethan Dedman’s from 16 to 14 years. The formal terms after deduction became 25 years 208 days, 18 years 235 days and 12 years 207 days respectively. All other sentences remained unaltered.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On 27 March 2026, the renewed applications for leave to appeal conviction were refused. The sentence appeals of Jamal Trotman and Ethan Dedman were allowed, and Michael Tommy-Mbogba’s renewed application for leave to appeal sentence was granted and his appeal allowed to a limited extent. The minimum terms were reduced; all other sentences remained unaltered.
• Central Criminal Court: Following convictions in June 2024, the appellants were sentenced on 15 October 2024. The court imposed minimum terms of 23 years on Trotman, 16 years on Dedman, 29 years on Tommy-Mbogba and 23 years on Odunewu, subject to remand deductions, together with concurrent sentences for the related offences.