Three people were found guilty of serious crimes involving guns and drugs. They appealed, saying the jury cheated by using a magnifying glass and that their sentences were too harsh. The court said the magnifying glass wasn't a problem and that the sentences were fair.
Key Facts
- •Jordan Foote, Jabari Fanty, and Ricardo Nkanyezi were convicted of conspiracy to possess a firearm/ammunition with intent to endanger life, and conspiracy to supply Class A drugs.
- •Foote and Fanty were convicted of attempted murder; Fanty and Nkanyezi of murder; Fanty of possessing a bladed article; Nkanyezi of possessing an unlawful firearm.
- •Sentences: Foote – 30 years; Fanty – life, minimum 35 years; Nkanyezi – life, minimum 32 years.
- •Appeal grounds: Jury irregularity (magnifying glass in jury room); Nkanyezi – no case to answer; Foote – excessive sentence.
- •A magnifying glass was found in the jury room during deliberations. The judge directed the jury not to use it for enhancing evidence.
- •Foote's sentencing appeal argued for consideration of his age (18), intellectual limitations, lesser role, lack of serious prior convictions, and sentencing disparity.
Legal Principles
Jury's use of magnifying glass to enhance evidence.
R v Maggs (1990) 91 Cr App R 243, R v Asgodom [2012] EWCA Crim 2054, R v APJ [2022] EWCA Crim 942
Standard for a 'no case to answer' submission.
Not explicitly cited, but implied by the discussion of Nkanyezi's appeal.
Sentencing considerations under Section 33 of the Sentencing Act 2020.
Sentencing Act 2020, Section 33
Outcomes
Appeals against conviction refused.
Use of magnifying glass was not considered a jury irregularity; sufficient evidence existed for Nkanyezi's conviction.
Appeal against sentence refused.
Judge considered all relevant factors; sentence not manifestly excessive.