202400718 B1 - [2025] EWCA Crim 959

There were transcripts of 29 calls involving the appellant speaking to his mother, Seiysha (his girlfriend) and Alisha (Solanke’s girlfriend). The appellant knew that his calls from detention were being recorded.

In those calls, the appellant said a number of things which were not consistent with his defence at trial. The key statements against interest were as follows (this list taken from the skeleton argument for the appellant, para 10):

The defence initially objected to the prison calls going before the jury on the basis that they were inadmissible “confessions” obtained as a consequence of things said and done which were likely, in the circumstances existing at the time, to render any such evidence unreliable pursuant to section 76(2) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, having previously identified it as an issue of law or admissibility within the defence statement. However, that position was not maintained and the defence agreed that all but two of the prison call transcripts were admissible as evidence in the trial, once certain passages had been redacted or summarised. The two remaining in dispute were prison call numbers 12 and 19 which the defence argued were irrelevant. The judge ruled both of those calls relevant and admissible. In his ruling, the judge stated:

“In my judgment, the matters discussed in these two calls do have direct probative value to an issue in the case. In fact, they have direct probative value to the issue in the case, namely whether what has been suggested to be the defence of this defendant is a true defence or is a confection designed to mislead the jury.

In my judgment, the jury would be entitled to conclude on the basis of this material that the defendant recognises his culpability and is actively contemplating different methods of avoiding it by putting forward a false case.

In my judgment, the prosecution are right when they say this is not prejudicial material but instead, is probative of a central issue in the case, namely whether what is being put forward is or is not a true defence.”

It is not now suggested that the prison calls were not relevant. There is no challenge to the judge’s ruling in relation to calls 12 and 19.

At the close of evidence the judge circulated draft directions. It was at this point that counsel for the appellant first submitted, in writing followed by oral submissions, that a direction was required in relation to the prison calls to the effect that if the jury concluded that parts of what the appellant said were or may have been obtained as a result of things said or done which were likely to render such statements unreliable, the jury should disregard them. The judge’s attention was invited to paragraphs 16-2 and 16-5 of the Crown Court Compendium. The prosecution objected to that direction. In the event, the judge rejected the defence application. He gave this direction, which was in line with the prosecution’s submission:

“You will recall that you had read to you transcripts of the relevant parts of telephone conversations between Jake Debonsu and various of his friends and family from prison. Those transcripts are at tab 13 in your bundle. They record what Jake said about himself and about the activities of the other three defendants.

The transcripts of those calls are now in evidence in the case and their reliability and truthfulness are a matter for you. You should consider their significance as against Jake and as against the other three defendants.

As against Jake, they are his own words and you will consider them alongside all the other evidence in the case. He suggested in evidence that what he said in the calls was influenced by his desire to protect his “street credibility” and to avoid his being labelled a “snitch” or a “pussy”. You will need to consider those explanations and decide, first, whether they lead you to regard what he said as unreliable. Second, if it was reliable whether what he said in the calls was true.”