R v Henderson Domingo
[2024] EWCA Crim 587
R v Ajaypal Singh
12 March 2024
[2024] EWCA Crim 320
Court of Appeal
Ajaypal Singh was convicted of a violent robbery. He appealed, but the Court of Appeal said the evidence against him was strong enough and his sentence was fair. The court also said his lawyers didn't follow the right procedures when appealing.
Key Facts
- •Ajaypal Singh convicted of robbery (1 May 2020) after trial.
- •Previously pleaded guilty to possession with intent to supply cannabis and possession of a bladed article (October 2020).
- •Robbery involved four masked men, including Christopher Sargeant and Anthony Lascelles (who pleaded guilty).
- •Robbery victims: Mr and Mrs Hawkins and their two children (aged 11 and 9).
- •Robbery involved violence, threats with knives, and a shotgun shooting injuring the 11-year-old.
- •Singh's conviction relied on circumstantial evidence, including phone contact and cell-siting data.
- •Singh denied involvement, explaining phone contacts as drug-related business.
- •Singh's defence statement omitted mention of a personal phone number (3311), mentioned only during re-examination.
- •Lascelles testified that Gallimore, not Singh, organised the robbery.
- •Gallimore and Lascelles were later acquitted of robbery charges.
Legal Principles
Adverse inferences from silence under s.39 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.
R v Singh
Rules regarding fresh evidence under section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968.
R v Singh
Procedure for advancing grounds of appeal after single judge refusal, as per R v James [2018] EWCA Crim 285.
R v Singh
Sentencing guidelines for robbery offences and the judge's discretion in exceptional circumstances.
R v Singh
Outcomes
Appeal against conviction refused.
None of the five grounds of appeal raised arguable doubt about the safety of the conviction. The judge's directions were sufficient, the omitted phone number explanation could have been given during re-examination, and the fresh evidence was deemed insufficient and too late.
Appeal against sentence refused.
The 20-year sentence was not manifestly excessive given the severity of the crime and the judge's finding of dangerousness. The judge was entitled to depart from sentencing guidelines due to the exceptional circumstances of the case.
Application to adduce fresh evidence refused.
No reasonable explanation was given for not adducing the evidence at trial, and the evidence itself was unsatisfactory.
Application for order directed at Sargeant's solicitors refused.
The solicitors' request for confirmation of the waiver of privilege was reasonable and unanswered by the applicant.
Applications for extensions of time and to vary grounds refused.
The procedural history was unsatisfactory, with shifting grounds of appeal and a failure to comply with established procedures.