Myers v The Queen Cox v Same Brangman v Same
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Lord Hughes |
| Judgment Date | 06 October 2015 |
| Neutral Citation | [2015] UKPC 40 |
| Date | 06 October 2015 |
| Docket Number | Appeal Nos 0088, 0089, 0094 of 2013 |
| Court | Privy Council |
[2015] UKPC 40
Lord Kerr
Lord Wilson
Lord Hughes
Lord Toulson
Lord Hodge
Appeal Nos 0088, 0089, 0094 of 2013
Privy Council
From the Court of Appeal of Bermuda
Appellant (Myers) John Perry QC Elizabeth Christopher
(Instructed by Simons Muirhead & Burton)
Respondent Howard Stevens QC Rory Field, Director of Public Prosecutions Carrington Mahoney, Deputy DPP Cindy Clarke, Deputy DPP
(Instructed by Charles Russell Speechlys LLP)
Appellant (Brangman) Joel Bennathan QC
(Instructed by Saunders Law LLP)
Appellant (Cox) John Perry QC Larry Mussenden
(Instructed by Simons Muirhead & Burton)
Heard on 15 and 16 July 2015
The Board has heard together three appeals against conviction, challenging decisions of the Court of Appeal of Bermuda. They raise similar, although not identical, questions concerning the admissibility and proper ambit of evidence as to the existence and practices of gangs and the defendant's connections with them.
Each of the three cases concerned a deliberate shooting by someone who had clearly sought out the victim in order to shoot to kill. Two of the victims were shot dead; the third (in the case of Brangman) was hit but survived. The issue in each case was identity. In two of the trials (Myers and Cox) the Crown case was that the shooting was part of a long-standing feud between two rival gangs, and was triggered by an incident shortly beforehand in which there had been either insult to, or attack on, someone associated with one of the gangs. The shooting was in those two cases said to be a rapid and fatal retaliatory attack, not on the perpetrator of the earlier incident, but simply on some random member of the opposing gang. In these cases the gang evidence was part of the prosecution case from the outset. In the third trial (Brangman) the gang evidence was not originally part of the Crown case. It was admitted in consequence of cross examination of the victim, not to prove the existence of a feud between identifiable gangs, but to prove intra-gang loyalty between the defendant and an associate of his who had suffered an insult or attack. Thus in each of the cases the gang evidence was admitted primarily to demonstrate that the defendant had a motive to kill the victim.
In all three cases the principal gang evidence was given by a police officer, Sergeant Rollin. His evidence was admitted at each trial against objection taken on behalf of the defendants and, as will be seen, there was also objection to related evidence from other prosecution witnesses. Before the Court of Appeal several grounds of appeal against conviction were advanced, including that this evidence ought not to have been admitted. The Court of Appeal rejected that ground of appeal in each case, although by a majority in the cases of Myers and Cox. In those two appeals, Auld JA disagreed on that point, although he concurred in upholding the convictions on the grounds that the proviso to section 21(1) of the Court of Appeal Act 1964 (no substantial miscarriage of justice) applied. Before the Board, the only surviving ground of appeal which the defendants have permission to pursue relates to the admission of the gang evidence.
The appeals raise the following broad issues:
-
(a) whether the gang evidence was inadmissible as irrelevant and/or as impermissible proof of no more than bad character, or was admissible to prove motive;
-
(b) whether the gang evidence was admissible under the principle enunciated in ( R v Pettman unreported 2 May 1985) ("explanatory evidence");
-
(c) if gang evidence is admissible, what is its proper extent and content;
-
(d) if admissible, whether gang evidence can be given by a police officer who has made a special study of the gangs concerned, as well as of gang culture generally;
-
(e) if gang evidence is admissible, to what extent (if any) may the witness rely on information gathered from, or researched by, others;
-
(f) if such evidence is prima facie admissible, what ought to be the approach to the application to it of section 93 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 2006 (prosecution evidence which ought not to be admitted because its effect on the trial would be unfair); and
-
(g) if such evidence is admissible, what ought to be the practice relating to the advance notice, form and presentation of it.
On the night of Friday 4/Saturday 5 December 2009 there was a party at the Devonshire Recreation Club. At about 03.30 there was an argument between Neika Daily and David Cox. Daily threw a beer bottle at Cox, who threw a drink over her. Daily was pushed out of the club. Kumi Harford was also at the club with several friends. Sometime after 04.30 his group left and returned in various combinations to St Monica's Road, where one of the girls in the group lived. By just after 05.00, Harford had left her home and was driving his car away when he was shot dead at the wheel. Two firearms had been used. None of those facts was in dispute.
The Crown sought to prove, chiefly through Sergeant Rollin, that there was a violent feud between, on the one hand, the Parkside and Middletown gangs (associated with each other) and, on the other, the 42nd gang and its associate, the MOB gang. Myers was said to be a member of Middletown. Neika Daily was said to be closely associated with Middletown. Her home was one of its principal haunts. Her son (Juju Williams) was said to be a member, whilst her niece Rogernae, who lived partly with her, was a girlfriend of Myers. On the other side, David Cox and the deceased Harford were said to be members of the 42nd. The Crown's case was that the shooting of Harford was a further episode in this violent feud, and an instant retaliation by Middletown against the 42nd for the insult done to Neika Daily about an hour and a half beforehand in the Devonshire Club.
Sergeant Rollin gave evidence that he was a member of a small police unit charged with targeting gangs in Bermuda. He regularly patrolled the streets where gangs congregated. He saw and frequently spoke to their members, most of whom he knew by name. He had studied their territories, and the markings which they put on walls within them, and their structures. He had undergone specialist training in gang monitoring and study from the FBI, both locally and in the USA and he was in communication with that institution's head and field offices in Washington DC. There were three other officers in his unit, also patrolling regularly in the areas concerned. They pooled their information, sightings and like material upon a shared database. The Crown put him forward as an expert in gang culture in general and the Bermuda gangs in particular. The judge treated him as such.
The form of Sergeant Rollin's evidence was fourfold. Firstly, he described the two relevant gang groupings, namely Middletown/Parkside on the one hand and 42nd/MOB on the other and explained their territories. Secondly, he gave evidence of the violent feud between them, referring to acts of violence and murder in general and to the murder by shooting of one of the 42nd named Kenwandee Robinson in particular. Thirdly, of a number of named people, including the defendant, he gave evidence that he considered them members of one or other of these gang groupings, stating inter alia the allegiances set out in para 6 above. He described the defendant as a high-level member of Middletown. And fourthly, he produced three photographs which showed assembled groups of Middletown/Parkside members, including the defendant, identified them by name in most cases, and described as the gang sign the "M" symbol which the defendant could be seen making with his hand in two of the photographs, and which another member was also making. When challenged on the basis that his information derived from others, he said that there was a unit database to which all members of his team contributed, but that only a very small part of what he had given in evidence was other than his first-hand information. His evidence was that he had known the defendant very well for some eight years, having seen him almost daily.
However, when identifying named persons as members of one or other gang, Mr Rollin's witness statement simply said that he "considered" X to be a member of the relevant gang. He did not set out the basis for his belief, beyond saying that he was very familiar with the streets. He did not, in his witness statement, give information of particular, or even unparticularised, sightings of the individual concerned in significant places or in significant company, although in oral evidence he did say, in relation to the defendant, that he was habitually to be found with other members in or near the house of Neika Daily, which was the common meeting point of the Middletown gang, whilst the photographs were further evidence of this association.
Both in his witness statement and in his oral evidence, Sergeant Rollin added the information that the Middletown gang (and the other gangs also) were known to him to be involved in the sale of controlled drugs, in robberies and in acts of violence, including with firearms. Moreover, when describing the feud between the gangs, he asserted that the cause was unknown, but that it appeared to revolve around drug dealing. Of the defendant, he added his evidence that he had never known him to be in employment.
The evidence of a firearms expert Mr McGuire established that two weapons had been used to gun down Harford. One was of .40 calibre and the other 9 mm. His evidence, together with that of Detective Constable Burgess, whose job it was to record the findings of ballistics experts in shootings, demonstrated that the .40 gun had...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R v AAD
...(Pakistan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2020] UKSC 9; [2020] 1 WLR 1373; [2020] 3 All ER 733, SC(E)Myers v The Queen [2015] UKPC 40; [2016] AC 314; [2015] 3 WLR 1145; [2016] 1 Cr App R 11, PCR v A (RJ) [2012] EWCA Crim 434; [2012] 2 Cr App R 80, CAR v Asiedu [2015] EWCA Cri......
-
Kennedy v Cordia (Services) LLP
...of drugs that people tend to keep for personal use rather than for supply to others. Recently, in Myers, Brangman and Cox v The Queen [2015] UKPC 40; [2015] 3 WLR 1145, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council approved of the use of police officers, who had special training and conside......
-
Malone v State of Queensland (The Clermont-Belyando Area Native Title Claim) (No 5)
...[2012] FCA 1285 Murray on behalf of the Yilka Native Title Claimants v State of Western Australia (No 5) [2016] FCA 752 Myers v The Queen [2016] AC 314; [2015] UKPC 40 Narrier v State of Western Australia [2016] FCA 1519 Neowarra v State of Western Australia [2003] FCA 1402 Northern Territo......
-
Bhola (Customs and Excise Officer II) v Canserve Caribbean Ltd, Nurse and Gibbs
...App No. 96 of 2009 – Rammarine Maraj v. The AG and the Comptroller of Customs CA Civ. No. 54 of 1997 – Myers, Brangman and Cox v. R [2015] U.K.P.C. 40 – Patel v. The Comptroller of Customs [1965] 3 W.L.R. 1221 – Glendon De Galle v. United Hatcheries Ltd Mag. App. No. 155 of 1986 – The Compt......
-
Case Law
...have been produced can be put into evidence despite that unavailability. Expert Evidence Evidence Act Myers v R; Cox v R; Brangman v R [2016] AC 314 Where the legislation allows, forensic certificates, ballistics certificates and other such certificates are admissible without the maker givi......
-
Expert Evidence in Criminal Proceedings
...Law Commission’s draft Bill).62. Ibid. at [3.126] and [4.6].63. R v Oakley (1980) 70 Cr App R 7 per Lord Widgery CJ at 9.64. Myers v R [2015] UKPC 40 per Lord Hughes at [57].65. [2003] 2 Cr App R 15.66. [2015] EWHC 628 (Admin).67. Specifically Psilocybin mushrooms, a type of wild mushroom w......
-
Expert Evidence, Hearsay and Victims of Trafficking
...is whether they can draw upon ‘abalanced body of specialised knowledge which would not be available to the tribunal of fact’(Myers v R[2015] UKPC 40 at [48]). Although such information is largely hearsay it is admissible as part of the‘body of expertise in the field’under the eighth common......