202400718 B1 - [2025] EWCA Crim 959

In case we are wrong in the conclusion we have reached, we have considered whether the conviction is nonetheless safe. It is important to recall that this confession evidence was obtained while the appellant was being held on remand after his arrest and was not a contributing reason to his arrest. The police already had a case against him which they considered strong enough to justify arrest and charge.

The main evidence against the appellant was in the form of CCTV evidence. The vehicle in which the appellant was travelling could be seen to ram Bartolo’s motorbike and send Bartolo flying into the air. The appellant and Bah were in that car on the right hand side and furthest from the collision. They both got out and the appellant can be seen having an exchange with Bah who could be seen with a knife. The appellant then got into the driver’s seat with the engine on and the foot brake engaged until the others got in and he drove away.

He admitted having stolen the car and wanting to show it off to his friends. He admitted having a “beef” the Abbey Wood gang. He admitted a history of knife possession. These are all factors which tend to corroborate the prosecution’s case.

In addition, the appellant gave a number of varying accounts of himself that evening (leaving the confessions in the prison calls out of that equation for the moment). The credibility of his account was clearly in issue from the outset.

The most important inconsistencies between what was said in the prison calls and his defence at trial were (i) his admission that he had a knife with him that night; and (ii) his admission that he saw that Bartolo had already been “drilled” (stabbed) when he stepped out of the vehicle (which the prosecution suggested was the reason why he did not join in – because his co-defendants had already done the violent act they set out to do that evening). The prosecution case was that the knife could be seen on the CCTV being passed from the appellant to Bah (something the appellant denied). The appellant could be seen on CCTV on the right hand side of the car as the knife attack was ongoing on the left hand side. These inconsistencies in the prison calls were not therefore pivotal aspects of the case against the appellant because the points he confessed to were already before the jury in the form of the CCTV evidence, and the arguments based on it.

We conclude that the outcome would have been no different if the jury had, on the judge’s direction, concluded that the confessions were or might have been made in consequence of something said or done which was likely to render them unreliable with the result that they had to be disregarded.

We conclude that the appellant’s conviction for both murders is safe.