R v Remi Loader & Anor
[2023] EWCA Crim 410
Lielay Areguy v R
14 June 2023
[2023] EWCA Crim 669
Court of Appeal
Areguy was convicted of helping plan a shooting. He appealed, saying his lawyer was bad and there was new evidence. The court said even with the new evidence and considering the lawyer's mistakes, there was still enough proof to convict him, so the appeal was rejected.
Key Facts
- •Kemar Bassaragh was shot at his flat in Northolt on March 6, 2019.
- •Rached Itani and Leon De'Silva were arrested in a stolen Range Rover with latex gloves and shotgun residue.
- •The attack was planned by Omar Mechita and Abraham Espinosa, drug dealers with a dispute with Bassaragh.
- •Lielay Areguy drove his Vauxhall Astra, carrying Mechita, Itani, and De'Silva, on a reconnaissance trip to Northolt before the shooting.
- •Areguy was charged with conspiracy to murder.
- •CCTV footage showed a vehicle, possibly Areguy's Astra, near Bassaragh's flat during the reconnaissance.
- •Areguy's trial defense argued he was unaware of the planned shooting.
- •The prosecution's case relied on circumstantial evidence, including telephone records, ANPR data, and CCTV footage.
Legal Principles
Standard for granting leave to appeal based on a new ground not raised before a single judge.
James [2018] EWCA Crim 285
Test for ineffective assistance of counsel leading to an unfair trial.
Not explicitly cited, but implied throughout sections 36-51.
Admissibility of fresh evidence on appeal.
Not explicitly cited, but discussed in relation to the fresh evidence application.
Outcomes
Appeal against conviction refused.
The fresh evidence, while admissible, did not undermine the circumstantial case against Areguy. The prosecution case, even without the contested CCTV evidence, remained compelling. The representation at trial, despite some shortcomings in the initial solicitor's conduct and the late emergence of crucial CCTV evidence, was ultimately deemed adequate and not prejudicial to the defendant.
Leave to appeal on the ground of fresh evidence refused.
The fresh evidence largely confirmed points already established or conceded at trial, not altering the overall strength of the prosecution’s case.
Leave to add the new ground of appeal (inadequate representation) refused.
While acknowledging some shortcomings in the initial solicitor's conduct and the handling of evidence by the defence, the court found the overall representation to be sufficiently competent to not render the trial unfair.