R v Lesley
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE HENRY |
| Judgment Date | 09 November 1994 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1994] EWCA Crim J1109-5 |
| Docket Number | No: 93/5039/W3 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
| Date | 09 November 1994 |
[1994] EWCA Crim J1109-5
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL CRIMINAL DIVISION
Before: Lord Justice Henry Mr Justice Garland and Mr Justice Scott-baker
No: 93/5039/W3
MR A RAWLEY QC appeared on behalf of the Appellant
MR R HORWELL appeared on behalf of the Crown
I understand that your client is not here, Mr Rawley?
No, he is not, so I understand. There was, I know, a faxed notice sent to him of today's hearing and the time of it. I have a copy of that in my chambers. It was a faxed notice sent from the Criminal Appeal Office. There are always traffic difficulties and I expect he is held up, but so far as I, personally, and my instructing solicitor who was brought in later on are concerned, we have no objection to the court going ahead and we will speak to him in due course.
Yes, very well.
On 11th August 1993, at the Central Criminal Court before His Honour Judge Denison QC, the appellant was convicted by a majority of 11 to 1 of the murder of Andre Blackman and was sentenced to life imprisonment. He was also convicted of wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm to Jaffeth Dixon and was sentenced to seven years' imprisonment concurrent. A third count of wounding Jacqueline Sinclair with intent to do grievous bodily harm was ordered to lie on the file, subject to the usual conditions. His co-accused, Lineth May Lewis was acquitted of murder and wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm to Jaffeth Dixon and she was found not guilty on the third count relating to Jacqueline Sinclair, under section 17 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967.
Leroy Owen Lesley appeals against conviction, the trial judge having granted a certificate on the ground of inconsistent verdicts. Other grounds have been argued.
In the early hours of Monday 30th November there was a dance at the Roots Pool Community Centre, Brixton, which we will call 'Roots Pool'. The majority of those attending were either of Jamaican origin or had connections with Jamaica. It was a 'linen party' —that is to say, the men were expected to wear linen suits and the ladies to be appropriately dressed.
Just before 4.30 am Andre Blackman was shot dead by a gunman using an Argentine-made copy of a Browning semi-automatic pistol, capable of taking thirteen rounds in the magazine and one in the chamber. It was referred to as a '14-shooter'. Almost immediately afterwards Jaffeth Dixon was also shot but not killed. As he tried to escape, the gunman hit him on the head with the gun. Several random shots were fired and the gunman, who the Crown alleged was the appellant, and who was referred to by his nickname 'Crucial', made good his escape. One of these random shots, probably a ricochet, inflicted superficial wounds on Jacqueline Sinclair's leg.
The case against Lineth Lewis was that in June or July she had told Ann-Marie Douglas, the principal prosecution witness, that she wanted a gun for 'Crucial' and had £1,800 available. Later Lineth Lewis gave Ann-Marie Douglas £1,800 in cash, which she handed to a black man in the street near Roots Pool. On the night of 30th November Ann-Marie Douglas said she saw Lineth Lewis hand a gun, which she recognised as a 14-shooter, to the appellant, who then shot Andre Blackman. When, many months later, a gun was recovered, Ann-Marie Douglas identified it as the one used in the shooting and this was established by forensic evidence.
The Crown case depended, in very large measure, on the evidence of Ann-Marie Douglas. She implicated Lineth Lewis in obtaining a gun for the appellant and just before the shooting she said she saw 'Crucial', who was well known to her, emerge from a dark corner. He looked as if he had not shaved for some days. He was wearing a black three-quarter length jacket, dark blue or black trousers and black or brown desert boots. He said to one man in a group of four: "What are you blanking me for?" The man denied he was blanking at him. 'Crucial' then walked across to Lineth Lewis, who was standing near a pillar, and they spoke to one another. 'Crucial' held out his hand, palm upwards; Lineth Lewis took out of her bag (which was over her left shoulder) a gun, which Ann-Marie Douglas said she recognised as a 14-shooter; it was handed to 'Crucial' butt first. The defence made the point that to recognize the gun as a 14-shooter displayed a degree of knowledge of the weapon about which Ann-Marie Douglas was not prepared to say very much, except that she knew about guns, coming as she did from Jamaica where many people carried them. 'Crucial' took the gun, walked across to Andre Blackman, pushed him in the face with his left hand and fired a shot at him. He then fired a second shot and walked to the exit where he fired more shots into the air. She picked out the appellant on an identification parade as the gunman.
Ann-Marie Douglas' evidence was vigorously attacked in cross-examination. She refused to answer questions and was truculent, evasive and obstructive. She refused to name anyone who she had been with on the night of 29th/30th November. When it was put to her, in terms, that her evidence was fabricated and she was not present at Roots Pool that night, she said that was a lie.
She agreed that she was an illegal immigrant and had entered the country on a false passport. As a result she had been interviewed by an immigration officer, Mr Fotheringham, on 2nd February 1993 and told him that although she was present when the shootings took place, she did not see who did it. Her explanation was that both she and her family in Jamaica had been threatened and that she had received messages to the effect that if she went to the police her head would be blown off. She also said that her brother had been shot dead in Jamaica and that she thought, rightly or wrongly, that that was a threat to her. The court was told that there was some doubt as to whether she had a brother at all, let alone one who had been shot. She said she had gone to the police on 18th February and made the statement because she was not prepared to be intimidated by such threats.
It was submitted by Mr Rawley QC, on behalf of the appellant, that Ann-Marie Douglas had made four major errors in the course of her evidence:
(1) She said that Danny Fontaine was making a video of the proceedings. The other evidence was to the effect that Danny Fontaine was doing no such thing, indeed, was not present at all.
(2) She said that the person running the party was the second defendant, Lineth Lewis, who is usually known as 'Jennifer'. In fact the party was being run by Dainty Casanova, who was one of the prosecution witnesses.
(3) Her description of her dress was inappropriate. She said it was 'X-rated', that is to say, minimal and see-through, whereas, as it has already been said, it was a linen party and the ladies were expected to be at least semi-formally dressed.
(4) She said that Lineth Lewis' daughter, Karen, was present with her sisters, when there was incontrovertible evidence, accepted by the Crown, that Karen was in hospital.
Jacqueline Sinclair went to Roots Pool with her brother, sister and friend. She had not been there before and did not know anybody. Just before the shooting she was standing with her group in front of the bar when she noticed a man who was unshaven and did not look as though he was part of the event because he was not dressed in linen. He was wearing a black, brown and acorn patchy shirt which was unbuttoned to the waist and dark tight trousers. He was about five foot eight, small/medium build, bearded and in his late twenties. He was 'acting fidgety'. A man approached him. They began to have words. The lights went out and shots were fired. The lights came on again and she saw a tall man and another man, whom she thought was the 'fidgety' man —she saw him in silhouette and noticed his tight trousers. He hit the tall man on the head with the gun and then there was another shot and she felt a pain in her leg. She picked out the appellant on an identification parade as the 'fidgety' man.
Jaffeth Dixon, although he had every opportunity to see the man who shot him, failed to identify the appellant. However, he said that after being shot he had been hit on the head with the gun by the person who had shot him.
Various other witnesses, who had seen the shooting, attended identification parades and failed to pick out the appellant.
A number of people who knew the appellant said that he was not at Roots Pool on the night of 29th/30th November, though none of those who knew him had seen the shootings.
Conflicting descriptions were given, both as to dress and physical appearance. All the witnesses spoke of panic and confusion following the first shots and most agreed that immediately before the shots were fired all the lights except the bar lights were turned off.
Pearl Ellis said she went to Roots Pool with Lineth Lewis and Lineth Lewis' mother. She did not see the shooting but heard the shots. At the time Lineth Lewis was standing near a pillar. She was wearing a rose pink linen suit with short trousers and wearing a great deal of jewellery, but was not carrying a handbag.
The appellant was arrested in the early hours of 24th January 1993. He was driving a car and was recognised by a police officer. When the appellant was told he was under arrest on suspicion of murder he became violent and ran away. He was caught but struggled violently. He bit one of the arresting officers and kept shouting: "You're dead!". The defence objected to the circumstances of the arrest going before the jury on the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R v Michael Hickey and Others
...which we have cited was set out. Recent cases to which our attention was drawn are Pemberton (1994) 99 Cr App R 228 and Lesley (1996) 1 Cr App R 39. In Lesley the court stated that what was called 'the failed alibi direction' should routinely be given although whether a failure to give it r......
-
R v Geoffrey Singleton
...of recent decisions that such a direction is commonly required in cases where the defence relied on is an alibi: see, eg, R v Lesley [1996] 1 Cr App R 39 and the discussion in Archbold, 2003 ed, para 4-402. It has to be borne in mind that this does not necessarily apply where the case basic......
-
Pringle v The Queen
...is contended that a further direction should have been given to the effect that an alibi is sometimes invented to bolster a true defence: R v Lesley [1996] 1 Cr App R 39, 46. It is also contended that the trial was characterised by frequent interruptions by the judge which resulted in the ......
-
Capron v R
...said he was, a Turnbull direction was essential. From what the Court of Appeal go on to say, it appears that the argument had been based on R v Lesley [1996] 1 Cr App R 39 and had been to the effect that the judge should have directed the jury that, even if they rejected the appellant's al......
-
Exemplum Habemus: Reflections on the Judicial Studies Board's Specimen Directions
...impressing upon trialjudges the importance of telling the jury that it is for the Crown todisprove an alibi, states:In R v. Lesley [1996] 1 Cr. App. R. 39 the Court of Appeal quashed aconviction when the standard JSB direction . . . had not been given.This is an unmistakable warning of what......