Eloddie Goncalves Taborda & Anor v R

For an accused charged as an allower under the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004, the prosecution must prove the statutory risk and foresight requirements. The risk under section 5(1)(c) must exist coterminously with the unlawful act and may be pre-existing or arise from the act or omission itself. The circumstances-of-the-kind inquiry focuses on the circumstances in which death occurred, rather than merely the injury or unlawful means. At the no-case stage, the whole evidential picture must be considered. A safety plan may be relevant, but breach of it cannot alone or mainly justify conviction.

At the Crown Court at Chelmsford, Eloddie Goncalves Taborda was convicted of murder and other offences, while Muritala Olaiya-Imam was convicted of allowing the death of a child and related offences. They were sentenced on 20 October 2023. Olaiya-Imam appealed against convictions on counts 3 and 5 and against sentence, seeking to adduce fresh expert evidence. Taborda sought an extension of time to appeal against conviction on count 4 and renewed leave to appeal against sentence. The central issues were the sufficiency and safety of the evidence concerning an earlier wrist injury, the relevance of a child-protection safety plan, the effect of fresh expert evidence, and the appropriate sentence for Olaiya-Imam.

Disposition. The appellant’s appeals against conviction were dismissed. The applicant’s application for an extension of time to seek leave to appeal against conviction was refused, and her renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused. The appellant’s sentence appeal succeeded in part.

1. Convictions. Under the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004, an accused who was not the person whose unlawful act caused the death could be convicted as an allower only if the matters in section 5(1)(d)(i)–(iii) were proved. The court applied R v Jamal [2026] EWCA Crim 135 on the coterminous risk requirement and the practical importance of a pre-existing risk. It applied the guidance in R v Sheikh & others [2025] EWCA Crim 38: the relevant circumstances were those in which the death occurred, assessed by reference to what the accused foresaw or ought to have foreseen.
2. No case and safety plan. There was sufficient circumstantial and expert evidence for the jury to infer that the applicant caused the earlier wrist injury and that the appellant knew or ought to have known of the significant risk of serious physical harm. The appellant had taken no protective steps. The safety plan was relevant evidence of knowledge, risk and wilfulness, but the judge had correctly directed that it was only part of the evidence and could not alone or mainly support conviction.
3. Fresh evidence. The court considered the expert evidence de bene esse. It was satisfied that the trial evidence remained reliable. The fresh evidence of Professor Freemont did not undermine the convictions, particularly because his opinion was not regarded as sufficiently open or impartial. Earlier criticisms of Professor Mangham and Dr Cleghorn in family proceedings did not materially affect their evidence in this case. The application to admit the fresh evidence was refused.
4. Sentence. The applicant’s 17-year minimum term was not arguably manifestly excessive, although the record was corrected to state the term after deduction of 639 days on remand as 15 years and 91 days, in accordance with R v Sesay [2024] EWCA Crim 483. The appellant’s culpability for allowing death fell within category C rather than category B because the relevant period was not prolonged. A substantial uplift nevertheless justified seven years’ imprisonment. The 10-year sentence was quashed and a sentence of seven years substituted; the remaining sentences were unchanged.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) [2026] EWCA Crim 627: dismissed the appellant’s conviction appeals, refused the applicant’s extension and sentence applications, and allowed the appellant’s sentence appeal in part.
• Crown Court at Chelmsford: convictions entered on 26 July 2023 and sentences imposed on 20 October 2023. The applicant received a life sentence with a 17-year minimum term; the appellant received 10 years for allowing the death of a child.