Note Of Appeal Against Conviction By Scott Leslie Snowden And Robert Michael Jennings Against Her Majesty's Advocate
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judge | Lord Justice Clerk,Lord Brodie,Lady Smith |
| Neutral Citation | [2014] HCJAC 100 |
| Published date | 25 September 2014 |
| Year | 2014 |
| Court | High Court of Justiciary |
| Docket Number | XC466/13 |
| Date | 25 August 2014 |
APPEAL COURT, HIGH COURT OF JUSTICIARY
[2014] HCJAC 100
XC466/13 and XC471/13
Lord Justice Clerk
Lady Smith
Lord Brodie
OPINION OF THE COURT
delivered by LORD CARLOWAY, the LORD JUSTICE CLERK
in
NOTE OF APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION
by
(FIRST) SCOTT LESLIE SNOWDEN and
(SECOND) ROBERT MICHAEL JENNINGS
Appellants;
against
HER MAJESTY’S ADVOCATE
Respondent:
Appellant (Snowden): Findlay QC, A MacLeod; Paterson Bell (for Gildeas, Glasgow)
Appellant (Jennings): Allan QC, Green; Drummond Miller (for Richard Lobjoie & Co, Glasgow)
Respondent: Prentice QC AD (sol adv), Findlater; the Crown Agent
25 August 2014
Introduction
[1] These appeals focus on the obligations of a trial judge when describing evidence in directions to a jury. There are subsidiary points concerning sufficiency, the admissibility of expert evidence on eye witness identification and the admissibility of statements made by an accused outwith the presence of his co-accused. Ultimately, the court has held that none of the grounds of appeal succeed and the appeals must be refused.
General
[2] On 8 May 2013 the appellants went to trial at the High Court in Glasgow on 22 charges, almost all of which were libelled against both of them. The singular feature of the indictment was the number of alleged instances of wilful fire raising on licensed premises and private houses in Helensburgh and its environs, culminating (charge 22) in the murders of three members of the Sharkey family, namely the father (Thomas), the teenaged son (Thomas junior) and the daughter (Bridget), aged 8. The mother was also severely injured in the fire which was wilfully set on their home on 24 July 2011.
[3] The Crown case lasted many weeks, at the end of which the libels on 7 charges were withdrawn and no case to answer submissions were sustained in respect of 2 more. Neither of the appellants gave evidence although there were the contents of several witness statements and an interview by the police in Mr Jennings’ case. The defence did lead some witnesses and there was a substantial body of evidence agreed by joint minute. Ultimately the jury convicted Mr Snowden of 12 charges (cc 1, 3, 7, 10-17 and 22) and Mr Jennings of 5 charges (cc 10, 14-15, 18 and 22). The convictions (cc 17 and 18) included, in respect of both appellants, concern in the supply of cocaine over the years 2009 to 2011; a crime which neither seriously disputed during the trial.
[4] Chronologically, charge 1 was setting fire to a house under construction at Kingspoint in July 2008. Charge 3 was a similar offence involving the Garth Inn in June 2009. Charge 7 was also a fire-raising, by burning down the house of a family called Chalmers known as “The Steep”, Rhu, in September 2009. The family were away on their boat at the time. Charge 10 was an assault upon a Mr McKinney by slashing his face at his home in Alexandria in January 2010. Charge 11 involved setting fire to the Mariners Pub, which was being renovated by Mr Sharkey, in April 2010. Charge 13 was an assault on a Mr McGinley at the Logie Baird Pub in June 2010. Charge 14 was a more serious assault on Mr McGinley by throwing ammonia at him in the Argyll Bar in January 2011. Charge 15 involved setting fire to Mr McGinley’s home, with him and his family in it, at William Street in January 2011. Charge 22 involved a similar modus operandi, but with fatal consequences, on the Sharkey’s home in Scott Court later that year.
[5] It is not unreasonable to characterise the offences as extremely serious and escalating gangster type activity in relation to which the Crown alleged that Mr Snowden was the main protagonist and Mr Jennings his gofer. In that connection, Mr Snowden had a series of alibis for most of the fire-raising charges (3, 7, 11 and 22) and incriminations of various persons on those and other charges. However, it was not suggested that he had personally carried out the fire-raisings (other than charge 1) or the assaults. Rather, he had instructed others, mainly, but not exclusively, Mr Jennings, to do his bidding.
[6] On 25 July 2013, which was the day after the jury had returned their verdicts, Mr Snowden and Mr Jennings were sentenced to imprisonment for life with punishment parts respectively of 33 and 29 years. No appeals are taken against sentence.
Evidence
[7] Although there was a multiplicity of charges for the jury to consider, and the trial was a long one, the issues for determination were not intrinsically complicated. As a generality, it was not disputed that the crimes had been committed and, in particular, that the fires had been set deliberately, usually by pouring petrol through a broken window or a letterbox in a door. The areas of conflict involved relatively simple questions of fact; notably whether Mr Snowden had instructed the libelled criminal activity and whether Mr Jennings had carried it out.
[8] The evidence against Mr Snowden consisted of testimony from certain witnesses about what he had allegedly said to them about the crimes, either before or after they had been committed, and in the coincidences of these crimes occurring after, and often very shortly after, an altercation between Mr Snowden and the subsequent victims. The testimony came largely from two witnesses. Lee McCarthy was the first of those. He spoke, for example, to Mr Snowden having admitted to the Kingspoint incident (c 1), the Garth Inn (c 3), the slashing of Mr McKinney (c 13) and the Cruin (c 16). Mr McCarthy said that Mr Snowden had threatened to have Mr Sharkey shot when he (Sharkey) was to be at a charity dinner at the Victoria Halls. When Mr McCarthy asked him afterwards why that had not happened, Mr Snowden had said “I’ve got something else in mind”. Shortly after the deaths of the Sharkey family (c 22), Mr Snowden had, in conversation with Mr McCarthy, referred to the fire with the phrase “It all went wrong”; something which, in the circumstances of proved animosity between Mr Snowden and Mr Sharkey, could have been taken as an admission of some form of involvement. Mr McCarthy also said that he had been present when Mr Snowden had instructed Mr Jennings to set fire to the Mariners (c 11) by saying “you know what to do” and then specifically that he wanted it burnt down. He said that Mr Snowden had also told Mr Jennings to throw acid at Mr McGinley (c 14).
[9] Secondly, there was Colin Hughes, who gave not dissimilar testimony. In relation to Kingspoint (c 1), for example, he testified that Mr Snowden had said “That will teach them not to take out my security”; the fire having occurred shortly after the site manager had declined an offer to that effect from Mr Snowden. He said that Mr Snowden had told him that “the Garth is getting torched tonight” (c 3); as indeed it was following upon Mr Snowden having earlier been barred from entering it. Mr Hughes had also heard Mr Snowden making other remarks about having burnt the Garth and how Mr Jennings had left a tool on a windowsill at the scene; such a tool having been found in that place. In relation to the extraordinary events involving The Steep (c 7), Mr Snowden had fallen out with its owner following an incident at the Rhu marina, where Mr Snowden was employed to operate a tender for the boats berthed there. Mr Hughes said that Mr Snowden had told him that he was going to find the owner’s address and get Mr Jennings to “burn him out”. He said that, when Mr Snowden was in Liverpool during the weekend of the fire, he had received a text from him asking him to see if that job had been done. On his return from Liverpool, where, as he admitted to Mr Hughes, he had set up a false alibi by involving the police in a fabricated incident at his hotel, Mr Snowden had remarked “That will teach him for f…g about with me and now he’s got to go and live on his boat”.
[10] In relation to the assault on Mr McKinney (c 10), Mr Hughes said that he (Hughes) had driven Mr Jennings to his house to do it, at the request of Mr Snowden. Mr Snowden had also said to him that the Mariners (c 11) “wouldn’t last long” as people from Liverpool (“scousers”) were going to burn it down. In relation to the Cruin (c 16), Mr Snowden had told him that the scheduled wedding of Mr McGinley’s daughter at the Cruin would not be going ahead, because he would make sure that it did not. He told him later that Mr Jennings, whom he referred to as “that daft bastard Rab”, had set fire to the fire doors; as indeed someone certainly had. In relation to the Sharkey house (c 22), Mr Hughes spoke to Mr Snowden saying that he would get Thomas Sharkey “done in” and “burnt out” while he was away. Mr Snowden was in Mexico when the fire occurred.
[11] A number of other witnesses did give similar testimony in relation to particular charges. For example, Simon Fraser spoke to a remark, made by Mr Snowden after the Rhu incident, similar to that reported by Mr Hughes. He spoke to threats by Mr Snowden towards Mr McKinney and to saying afterwards that he (McKinney) had got what he deserved. Mr Snowden had said after the Sharkey fire (c 22) that Mr Sharkey too had “got what he deserved”. This had been when they had been in the Ruby pub, where Mr Fraser was scheduled to repay a loan from Mr Snowden. Mark Sharkey, who was some degree of cousin to Thomas, said that Mr Snowden had told him that he had burned down the Mariners. Lee Haddow spoke to being asked by Mr Snowden to go to Mr Jenning’s house as he had a job for him, which turned out to be the burning down of Mr McGinley’s home (c 15). There were other adminicles of evidence against Mr Snowden, but these various remarks connecting him with the fires must have been the most telling. The multiplicity of events occurring after altercations with Mr Snowden would have provided strong evidence that it was indeed Mr Snowden who had been responsible for the instigation of the crimes.
[12] As already noted, Mr Snowden did not testify at his trial. Thus, to that extent, there was no evidence...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Appeal Against Sentence By Angus Sinclair Against Her Majesty's Advocate
... ... in law, now deceased … assault Helen Anne Scott, born 5 July 1960, aged 17 years … force her to ... page 2 notes:“I was told that the conviction on 25 August 1961 for culpable homicide involved ... imprisonment were not challenged in Snowden and Jennings , for what it is worth. As it ... part at the very top of the range. We note the cases cited by senior counsel for the ... ...
-
Appeal Following Upon A Reference From The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission
...The first relates to “balance”. This can be dealt with in relatively short form. As was repeated recently in Snowden v HM Advocate [2014] HCJAC 100 (at para[ [50]), the essence of such a complaint, if it is to be regarded as justified, has to be that the judge, when referring to the evidenc......
-
Appeals Against Conviction And Sentence By (1) Gary William Sim; (2) James Edward Watson And (3) Paul John Watson
...2003 SLT 545; 2003 SCCR 137 Scott v HM AdvocateSC 1946 JC 90 Shepherd v HM Advocate 1997 SLT 525; 1996 SCCR 679 Snowden v HM Advocate [2014] HCJAC 100; 2014 SCCR 663; 2014 SCL 736 Withers v HM AdvocateSC 1947 JC 109 Younas v HM Advocate [2014] HCJAC 114; 2015 JC 180; 2014 SLT 1043; 2014 SCC......
-
Keaney v HM Advocate
...HM AdvocateSC 1995 JC 142; 1996 SLT 49; 1995 SCCR 504 Scott v HM AdvocateSC 1946 JC 90; 1946 SLT 140 Snowden and Jennings v HM Advocate [2014] HCJAC 100; 2014 SCL 736; 2014 GWD 31–609 Withers v HM AdvocateSC 1947 JC 109 The appeal was heard before the High Court of Justiciary comprising Lad......