R v Shea Williams

On 26 April in the Crown Court at Isleworth following a retrial the applicant was convicted of attempted murder (Count 1), possessing a firearm with intent to endanger life (Count 3) and possessing ammunition without a certificate (Count 7). A co-defendant Anthony Wabali was acquitted and the jury were unable to reach verdicts in respect of the other co-defendant Jerome Manning. The applicant renews his application for leave to appeal against conviction following refusal by the single judge.

The single ground of appeal filed on 27 July 2023 is that the judge wrongly admitted as bad character evidence expert material on a North London gang known as the Church Road Soldiers ("CRS"). A few days ago the Criminal Appeal Office received a letter from solicitors asking to adjourn this renewal hearing. The solicitors were not the firm that had represented the applicant at trial. They made it clear that they had not yet been formally instructed and asked for an adjournment in order to obtain further information. There was mention in the letter of the possibility of further witnesses. The request came very late, on the eve of the day before the hearing, where the single judge's decision refusing leave was issued in October 2023 and the application to renew was filed in November 2023, over eight months ago. Furthermore, the existing ground of appeal had been drafted by senior and junior trial counsel who would, at the time of drafting it, have been very familiar with the issues, particularly as the conviction had followed a retrial. Moreover, there was nothing in the solicitors' letter indicating what further challenge might be advanced, which trial counsel had not already considered and raised. For these reasons we refused the application.

On Friday 29 October 2021 a party took place in the garden of 56 Hillfield Avenue, northwest London. The party carried on into the early hours of the 30th. In his statement, read to the jury, the victim, Jarvis Ansah described going to the party but deciding to leave after a few hours as 'the vibe was off'. As he was leaving he heard running and loud bangs which sounded like gunshots. He remembered being hit and falling to the ground and hearing footsteps around him. He was hit several more times before the footsteps ran away. Ansah had been followed by three men, two of whom had shot him. Some 18 shots were fired in all. Ansah sustained very serious injuries. Neither he nor any other witness was able to identify the gunmen. There was no evidence that the victim and defendants were known to each other. There was no evidence of motive or that the shooting had been gang or territory related.

CCTV from a nearby doorbell camera was played to the jury. The footage captured sounds of gunfire before a male voice could be heard shouting, 'Why, why, why?' and a possible second male voice shouting, 'For what reason?' before more gunshots were heard. Ansah can be seen running into shot and falling to the floor while shots are heard. Two men are seen running in the direction of Ansah, each holding and discharging a firearm towards him. Ansah is by this time on the ground. As the gunmen run past him the first gunman stands over him firing at point-blank range before running off whilst discharging two further shots in his direction. The second male can also be seen running past and discharging his firearm at Ansah. The words 'That's why you joker, bright' are heard on the footage. Wabali is seen running into shot as Ansah is on the ground. He jogs past him in the same direction as the two gunmen and, as he moves past, Wabali can be heard to say 'Pussyhole, yeah'.

The prosecution case at trial was that the applicant and Manning were gunmen 1 and 2 respectively and that they shot Ansah nine times each with intent to kill him. Wabali had no gun but was said to have encouraged or assisted as part of a joint enterprise. Wabali accepted being there but denied any involvement in the shooting. The applicant and Manning both denied presence.

The prosecution successfully applied for leave to adduce evidence from a police officer, DC Jones about the CRS gang as bad character evidence. It was admitted pursuant to section 101(1)(d) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 as relevant to an important matter in issue, namely, whether the defendants were responsible for the shooting. It was not suggested that the motive for the shooting was gang related, however it was suggested that the defendants were members of or associated with the CRS which had access to and a willingness to use firearms. The prosecution submitted that the fact that all three were members of the same gang that espoused the use of firearms in the commission of offences should be available to the jury when deciding their verdicts. The defence argued that the evidence should not be used to bolster a weak case. The judge disagreed that it was a weak case. The evidence against the applicant consistent of an identification from CCTV footage by an officer, together with strong circumstantial evidence. Directing himself by reference to the case of Lewis [2015] EWCA Crim 48, the judge determined that the evidence was relevant and he rejected an application to exclude it as unfairly prejudicial on the basis that careful directions to the jury could adequately address the risk of an unfairly adverse effect.

The prosecution case against the applicant at trial relied on the following:

The defence case for the applicant and Manning was that they had been wrongly identified and had not been there. Wabali accepted having been there but denied participation. None of the defendants gave evidence at trial; all, including the applicant, had given largely no comment interviews. The identifying witness DC Wise was cross-examined extensively at the trial.

The issue for the jury in respect of the applicant was whether they were sure that he was one of the gunmen (count 1) and whether he was in possession of a handgun with the requisite intent (count 3), together with ammunition (count 7).

The advice and grounds prepared by trial counsel for this appeal contends that the evidence of DC Jones was wrongly admitted and that the prejudice caused to the applicant by its admission renders his conviction unsafe. It is said that DC Jones’ evidence could not establish that the applicant had been a member of CRS. The highest it went was that the applicant was sometimes in the presence of others alleged to be gang members. There was no evidence of any positive gang activity on the part of the applicant. As there was no evidence to suggest that the shooting of Ansah was in any way related to gang membership or to residence in a particular area of London, evidence of CRS could not assist in determining the issues in the case. Moreover, it is submitted that even if it could be said to be relevant the evidence was so prejudicial that it should have been excluded.

We have considered the trial judge's ruling admitting the bad character evidence carefully. It was an excellent ruling, correctly applying the law and the principles set out in Lewis to the facts and issues in the present case. The judge took account of the fact that there was no evidence of the shooting here being gang related. Under section 101(1)(d) the question is whether the evidence is "relevant to an important matter in issue." The matter in issue here was whether the applicant had been correctly identified as present at the shooting. The evidence going to CRS and his association with CRS was clearly relevant to that issue. Further, as the judge indicated, his directions to the jury, as to which no complaint is made, could and did deal with the risk of any adverse prejudicial effect. It is of note that the gang evidence had also been admitted against the applicant's co-defendants, one of whom, Wabali, about whom the jury also heard he had two sets of previous convictions for possession of loaded firearms, was acquitted, and in relation to the other the jury could not agree a verdict. These differential verdicts indicate that the jury carefully followed the directions which they had been given. Finally, and in any event, the circumstantial evidence against this appellant was very strong, placing his phone and his car at the scene at the time of the shooting with gunshot residue of the same kind as one of the guns which had been used found in a hidden compartment of that car just two days later.

We are entirely satisfied that, for these reasons, the applicant’s conviction is unarguably safe. The renewed application must accordingly be dismissed.