R v Alfie Ferguson & Ors
[2023] EWCA Crim 1569
Issa Seed & Ors v R
13 June 2024
[2024] EWCA Crim 650
Court of Appeal
Three gang members were convicted of murder after a shootout. The appeals court agreed with the convictions, saying it didn't matter that the victim was on the same 'team' as the convicted; they were all part of a violent agreement. One of the sentences was slightly reduced to account for time already served in jail.
Key Facts
- •Three applicants (Seed, Mensah, Yussuf) convicted of conspiracy to cause grievous bodily harm, murder, and possessing a firearm.
- •Charges arose from a shooting incident where Billy McCullagh was killed during an exchange of gunfire between rival gangs in Brent.
- •Applicants were alleged members of the 'reds' gang, engaging in a 'ride out' into 'blues' territory.
- •The deceased, McCullagh, was also involved in the incident and associated with both gangs.
- •Evidence included eyewitness accounts, forensic firearm analysis, mobile phone data, and CCTV footage.
- •Several judicial rulings during the trial were challenged on appeal, including admissibility of previous convictions and certain evidence.
Legal Principles
In a mutual violent conflict, all sharing a common purpose to use unlawful violence are liable for injuries caused.
R v Gnango [2011] UKSC 59, R v Jogee [2016] UKSC 8, R v Morgan [2021] EWCA Crim 895
If an individual agrees with others to engage in shooting ('shoot out'), or intentionally assists/encourages others during a gun battle, intending others in the line of fire to die or suffer serious injury, they are guilty of murder, regardless of victim's side.
R v Morgan [2021] EWCA Crim 895
The necessary agreement to shoot and be shot at may be inferred where two or more persons engage in, assist, or encourage shooting at each other, knowing it was virtually certain the other(s) would be armed and return fire, intending to kill or cause serious injury.
Gnango and Jogee principles applied by the court.
Admissibility of previous convictions under section 101(3) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 and section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.
Criminal Justice Act 2003, Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984
Sufficient evidence for a case to answer, as per R v Galbraith [1981] 1 WLR 1039.
R v Galbraith [1981] 1 WLR 1039
Outcomes
Appeals against conviction refused.
The court found no arguable error in the judge's assessment of the evidence or his legal directions. Sufficient evidence existed to support the convictions.
Mensah's appeal against sentence refused.
The finding of dangerousness was justified, and the sentence was appropriate given the aggravating factors.
Yussuf's appeal against sentence and application for extension of time refused.
No merit in the grounds of appeal against sentence.
Seed's appeal against sentence allowed in part.
To correct an error in the calculation of the minimum term by deducting the time spent in custody awaiting trial.