R v Momodou (Henry); R v Limani (Beher)

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
JudgeLord Justice Judge,LORD JUSTICE JUDGE
Judgment Date02 February 2005
Neutral Citation[2005] EWCA Crim 177
Docket NumberCase No: 200305215 B5; 200305406 B5
CourtCourt of Appeal (Criminal Division)
Date02 February 2005
Between:
R
and
Momodou
And Between:
R
and
Limani

[2005] EWCA Crim 177

Before:

Lord Justice Judge

Deputy Chief Justice Of England And Wales

Mrs Justice Dobbs and

Sir Michael Wright

Case No: 200305215 B5; 200305406 B5

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE

COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)

ON APPEAL FROM CROWN COURT AT HARROW

HHJ SANDERS AND A JURY

Royal Courts of Justice

Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

J. Bennathan for Momodou

J. Robertson and S.A. Ivill for Limani

N. Rumfitt QC and S. Johnson for the Crown

Lord Justice Judge
1

On 13th and 14th August 2003, after a trial lasting almost four months in the Harrow Crown Court, before HHJ Sanders and a jury, Henry Momodou and Beher Limani were respectively convicted of violent disorder. The same jury acquitted Momodou of count 2, arson, being reckless whether life was endangered. On 15th August each was sentenced to four years' imprisonment. They now appeal against both conviction and sentence with leave of the single judge.

2

There were a number of co-defendants. Kastrioti, Kalu, Gaba and Hrubes were acquitted of violent disorder on the judge's direction. Jacobs, Abdul and Tuka were acquitted by the jury of the same offence. A not guilty verdict was entered by the judge in relation to an offence of arson alleged against Gabo. Another defendant, Mosstaffa, was acquitted on the direction of the judge of both violent disorder and arson. He pleaded guilty to an offence of affray and was sentenced to three months' imprisonment. Before the jury was sworn, Aliane pleaded guilty to violent disorder. A not guilty verdict was entered in relation to arson. He was sentenced to eighteen months' imprisonment.

3

The appeal raises important issues about pre-trial coaching or training of witnesses and about the exercise by a trial judge of his powers when the court has received communications from one or more jurors critical of the conduct of other jurors. Although different grounds were advanced by both appellants, it was agreed that if any ground gave rise to doubts about the safety of the conviction of either appellant, then the conviction should be quashed, irrespective of whether the specific ground had been identified in his notice of appeal.

4

The prosecution arose from a well-publicised, major and notorious disturbance at the Yarl's Wood Immigration Detention Centre (Yarl's Wood), in Bedfordshire on the night of 14th/15th February 2002, some three months after the Centre was opened.

5

The Centre, which was run for the most part by staff of Group 4 known as detention custody officers (DCOs) was divided into four wings, Alpha, Bravo, Charlie and Delta. Females and families were detained in Charlie wing and single males in Delta wing. Association between the wings was permitted.

6

The trigger for events which led to the violence was a problem involving a female detainee known as Eunice. In the morning of 14th February she was involved in some trouble in the Charlie wing office. Not long afterwards, she was found in an unauthorised part of the Delta wing, and when asked to move, she refused. A number of detainees had heard her side of the earlier incident, and demanded to know why she had been refused medical treatment. They were told that she had been seen, and medication ordered. Although there was a degree of unpleasantness, the crowd dispersed, and the atmosphere calmed. Eunice was told that she would not be allowed to visit Delta wing that evening and a message was duly posted in the shift office in Charlie wing where she was detained.

7

At about 7.30 that evening a number of female detainees gathered outside the shift office on Charlie wing, anticipating a visit to the part of the Delta wing where male and female detainees were able to associate. Eunice was one of the women. In view of the earlier decision, when she sought to go into Delta wing, she was told that she would not be allowed to do so. She began to shout that she wanted to see a supervisor, and that she wanted to go to church in Delta wing. She walked towards the locked security door. Other female detainees followed. Some of them began to shout at DCOs who were present. The security gate was closed. When the security gate was opened, some of the detainees were ushered back into Charlie wing, but Eunice refused to move. She remained with her back against the locked security door, uttering threats. She began to throw her arms about and push at the DCOs, kicking at one of them. An order that she should be restrained was given. When a DCO attempted to carry the order, Eunice either bit or tried to bite him. In the end however she was restrained and brought to the floor.

8

This scene was observed through the window of the locked door by male detainees on Delta wing who were on the other side of the door. They began to bang on it. Some detainees armed themselves with improvised weapons, using chairs and table legs. The window was smashed. Missiles were then thrown through the resulting gap. Although, in the end, none of the detainees in Delta wing broke through the door to achieve the "rescue" of Eunice, the incident escalated very rapidly.

9

We need not describe the way in which an apparently minor matter of organisation and discipline at the Centre erupted into mayhem and destruction during which some of the detainees gained control of the Centre by the sheer force of their numbers and by violent intimidation of staff. Others escaped. The details of individual ordeals need no narration. It is however important to emphasise the vast scale of the disorder.

10

The outbreak of violence lasted for several hours before the police and prison service were able to regain control of the scene. For those who witnessed it, including a number of detainees, the incident was extremely alarming. For those present and directly involved, and under threat of serious injury or even death, it must have been a terrifying ordeal. Violence and the threat of violence was widespread. The building was set on fire, and half of it was effectively razed to the ground. The resulting damage ran into many million pounds. It required the most wide ranging forensic deconstruction of a site ever undertaken in Europe, involving the examination of literally tons of material, to establish that there were no fatalities.

11

The prosecution case against Momodou, well-known in the Centre, physically striking, and easily identifiable, was that he played a prominent part in the incident. He was directly involved in smashing the window in the locked security door, and, after Aliane had damaged a security camera on the ceiling, he pulled it away from the ceiling. He used a metal bar to force open a telephone cash box. He was also alleged to have started a fire. When he was subsequently interviewed, Momodou denied that he was present at the scene, untruthfully asserting that he was at prayers and then had gone straight to his room. Limani was said to be the first person seen on CCTV, waving and encouraging detainees towards the scene of the trouble involving Eunice. He was also present outside the office when it was besieged, and then again when a number of detainees made their way into Charlie wing, where he was seen to run about the corridor, screaming and shouting. He attacked the door in the manager's office, and ransacked it. Finally, he was alleged to have been one of the detainees who broke through the Delta wing gates, and after assisting the escape of others, escaped himself.

12

The Crown's case that the appellants were involved in the violent disorder was well supported. We shall first summarise the evidence given by DCOs. One, Ram, saw the incident involving Eunice in the lobby. He heard people trying to smash the door into the secure lobby, and when the window was broken, it just missed striking him. The only detainee he saw was Momodou, whom he knew as Henry, with his face at the glass. He could see a number of other detainees behind Henry, without being able to identify them because the background was dark, and the lights were smashed. A second DCO, Gibb, saw Momodou, whom he recognised, punching at the window with his fist. He saw his arm move, and when the glass broke he saw Momodou's face. He identified a number of other detainees, but apart from a good deal of shouting and banging, he could not see what they were doing. The third DCO, Collins, was involved in the efforts to restrain Eunice. When she shouted that she was going to be killed, a number of detainees were extremely aggravated. He knew Momodou, who was holding a piece of metal about 8�12" long, and heard him shout aggressively, "Open the door then". He did not do so. The window was then broken by a piece of metal which he believed Momodou had been holding. He was struck and his elbow was cut by the glass from the broken window. A fourth DCO, Fox, saw a number of detainees, including Momodou, who again, he knew, behind the window to the secure lobby. Momodou was punching "hell" out of the window in the door, which cracked. A solid object came through it which caught Collins. Another DCO, Attwood, thought that the window had been broken by a chair leg. The detainees behind the door included Momodou, who he heard shouting words to the effect, "Fucking get off her, leave her alone, get off my mum". DCO Traynor heard noise coming from the Delta secure lobby. He recognised Momodou as one of those behind the door. In his evidence he attributed the smashing of the window to another of the defendants, but the judge reminded the jury that this description was contradicted by almost every other witness. A number of DCOs identified the appellant as one of those present behind the security door, but did not attribute any...

To continue reading

Request your trial
36 cases
  • R (Saunders) v Independent Police Complaints Commission and Another
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
    • 10 October 2008
    ...UKHL 6) (risk of “trimming” if complainants see other witnesses' statements — esp. per Lord Rodger at para. 71, pp. 747–8); and ( [2005] 1 WLR 3442R v Momodou [2005] EWCA Crim 177) (witness coaching – see esp. para. 61, p. 3453). 14 The risk of evidence being contaminated by conferring is s......
  • Ultraframe (UK) Ltd v Fielding
    • United Kingdom
    • Chancery Division
    • 27 July 2005
    ...was "about as much use as a chocolate fireguard". During the course of the trial the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) gave judgment in R v. Momodou [2005] 2 All ER 571. They said this about witness training in criminal trials: "61. There is a dramatic distinction between witness trainin......
  • The Queen v David Shane Gibson
    • Bahamas
    • Supreme Court (Bahamas)
    • 8 March 2019
    ...take place and it was wrong for ASP Thompson to hold the joint witness session on 25 September 2017. See: R v. Momodou and another (2005) E.W.C.A. Crim 177; R v. Skinner(1994) 99 Cr. App. R. 212; R v. Shaw[2002] E.W.C.A. 3004 and R v. Richardson (1971) 55 Cr. App. R, 244 3The prosecution is......
  • G. Oær. v DPP
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 7 October 2011
    ...order that costs follow the event might not have been appropriate. The court requested submissions regarding this issue. R v Momodou [2005] 1 W.L.R. 3442 approved. Reporter: L.O'S. 1 Judgment of Mr. Justice Charleton delivered on the 7th October 2011 2 1. This application seeks to injunct t......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 firm's commentaries
  • Piercing The Veil Of Privilege: The Iniquity Exception
    • Bermuda
    • Mondaq Bermuda
    • 23 June 2021
    ...true recollection with another version of events. The Court of Appeal resisted an absolute application of the reasoning in R v Momodou [2005] 2 All ER 571 to civil proceedings and indicated that each case turns on its own particular facts. In relation to the latter, the Court of Appeal cite......
14 books & journal articles
  • The Criminal Jury in England and Scotland: The Confidentiality Principle and the Investigation of Impropriety
    • United Kingdom
    • International Journal of Evidence & Proof, The No. 10-3, July 2006
    • 1 July 2006
    ...the defence have a 83 See Gregory v UK (1998) 25 EHRR 577; Sander v UK (2001) 31 EHRR 44; Miah v UK (1998) 26 EHRR CD 199; R v Momodou [2005] EWCA Crim 177, [2005] 2 All ER 571. In R v Smith (Lance Percival) [2003] CrimLR 633 the Court of Appeal rejected a black defendant’s claim that his c......
  • Table of Cases
    • United Kingdom
    • International Journal of Evidence & Proof, The No. 11-4, October 2007
    • 1 October 2007
    .... . . . . . 129R v Mirza [2004] UKHL 2. . . . . . . . . . . 60, 344–345R v Moghal (1977) 65 Cr App R 56, CA . . . . . . 115R v Momodou [2005] 1 WLR 3442, CA . . . . . . . 17R v Mullen [1999] 2 Cr App R 143 . . . . . . . . . . . 84R v Murray [1997] 2 Cr App R 136. . . . . . 109, 127R v Musht......
  • Trial by Jury: Still a Lamp in the Dark?
    • United Kingdom
    • Journal of Criminal Law, The No. 69-6, December 2005
    • 1 December 2005
    ...in Attorney-General vScotcher [2005] UKHL36, [2005] 1 WLR 1867. Finally the Court of Appeal referred to it in R vMomodouand Another [2005] EWCA Crim 177, [2005] 2 All ER is given in the presence of all the other jurors then that is the end of thematter and the Court of Appeal will not inqui......
  • Judicial Management of Juror Impropriety
    • United Kingdom
    • Journal of Criminal Law, The No. 78-1, February 2014
    • 1 February 2014
    ...L [2011] EWCA Crim 65, [2011] 1 Cr App R 27. 6 [2004] UKHL 2, [2004] 1 AC 1118. 7 For example, see the major decisions in R v Momodou [2005] EWCA Crim 177, [2005] 2 All ER 571; R v Karakaya [2005] EWCA Crim 346, [2005] 2 Cr App R 5; Attorney-General v Scotcher [2005] UKHL 36, [2005] 1 WLR 1......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT