![202400718 B1 - [2025] EWCA Crim 959](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_sHeHK8V.png){kind=logo}
Trial
Trial
It was the prosecution’s case that the appellant, whilst not one of those who stabbed the victims, intentionally participated in a joint enterprise to murder.
The background to the offending lay in a longstanding dispute between a gang from Thamesmead called “T-Block” and another gang from Abbey Wood called “A-Town”. The appellant and his co-defendants were closely associated with or aligned themselves with the Thamesmead gang.
The appellant and his co-defendants, said the prosecution, were on a journey into rival gang territory. They were armed and ready to use the knives they had with them to attack and stab any young person associated with the Abbey Wood gang if the opportunity arose.
At trial, the prosecution relied on the following strands of evidence:
CCTV evidence. The incident was captured on CCTV.
Telephone recordings. There were recordings of telephone calls made by the appellant to friends and family while he was detained in a Young Offenders Institute following charge and awaiting trial. The content of the calls was mixed: the appellant said some things which were consistent with his defence at trial, namely, that he was present but did not participate in the attack; he said other things which were not consistent with his case at trial, for example, that he had a knife and did not join in the attack because the others had already stabbed Bartolo. (We shall return to these “prison calls” later in this judgment. They are the subject of this appeal.)
The appellant’s differing accounts. The appellant provided a number of different accounts as to his involvement including:
999 call.At 01.25 hours on 29 November 2022 police responded to a 999-call made by the appellant’s sister, reporting that the appellant had been subjected to threats in respect of the killings. The appellant told police that he was not involved in the murders in any way but admitted that he had “beef” with “the Abbey Wood boys”.
Prepared statements and “No comment” interviews. The appellant was arrested on suspicion of murder and was interviewed between 29 November and 1 December 2022. He gave two prepared statements in which he stated that he knew nothing of the murders of Bartolo and Solanke and did not know who the people involved were. In his fourth interview he commented on the CCTV footage of the killings in a way which was designed to make it appear that he had not been present at the scene and knew nothing of the murders. To the vast majority of the questions asked of him, he answered “no comment”.
Prison calls.The calls were made by the appellant from prison between 6 December 2022 and 21 January 2023. As we have indicated, in those calls the appellant gave varying accounts of the events of that evening.
Defence case statement. On 17 October 2023 the appellant served a defence statement, in which he accepted presence in the vehicle but denied any knowledge of a plan to attack or involvement in the same.
Evidence at trial. The appellant gave evidence at trial. He described how he had become involved in the Thamesmead gang: he would drive stolen vehicles and would go to rival gang territory and post pictures of himself being there. He said he had issues with others because he was associated with Thamesmead. He said that he would carry knives on occasions for self-protection. He was aware that others within his friendship group carried knives. He gave his explanation of the events of 26November 2022 and said that he had not been aware that anyone was carrying a knife but knew it was a possibility. He had been showing others the stolen vehicle because it was “cool”. He had seen people within the group swap clothes prior to getting into the vehicle, but had not known why they had done that. Those in the vehicle said they wanted to go to Abbey Wood, but he had not understood that what was planned was an attack. He had not been carrying a knife on him. There was a collision and he did not know what was happening. He did not interact with Bah and did not know what was happening on the pavement side of the car. The appellant agreed that his initial plan had been to maintain the account he had given in his prepared statements in interview, namely that he had not been present at the scene of the murders. He had ultimately changed his mind because of the CCTV and prison calls evidence, and served a defence statement in which he accepted presence.
The appellant’s case at trial was that he was present at the scene but played no part in the attack and more importantly, was not a party to a plan to attack anyone. In his defence case statementhe stated this, amongst other things:
“The Defendant accepts presence at the time of the events that resulted in the deaths of Charlie Bartolo and Kearne Solanke. However, he denies intentionally assisting or encouraging the murder of either man.
…
He was not armed with a knife, neither was he aware that others in the vehicle were armed, until the attack on Charlie Bartolo commenced, though in the Defendant’s area and amongst those he knew it was commonplace to carry knives for protection. The Defendant did not intentionally assist or encourage the attack on Charlie Bartolo, which commenced suddenly.
…
In the days following the incident, he was attacked by others involved and was subsequently labelled a “snitch”. The Defendant accepts giving an untrue account in his prepared statement in interview because he was scared.
…”
The jury rejected the appellant’s account and convicted him of both murders by a majority of 10-2.