R v E & A [2025] EWCA Crim 1534
The Court of Appeal largely refused the appeals of two applicants, aged 17 and 16 respectively at the time of the offence, against their convictions and sentences for attempted murder and murder respectively, arising from gang-related violence.
The decision addresses the admissibility of gang-related evidence given by a police officer from a specialist gangs unit, the approach to sentencing children for the most serious offences where there is evidence of gang exploitation and developmental immaturity, and the extension of legal aid to cover a solicitor's attendance at the Court of Appeal where the appellant had a learning disability.
Details
Trial Judge Sentencing
The applicant ‘E’ was convicted in the Crown Court on 22 May 2024 for attempted murder and sentenced to 22 years and three months’ detention in a Young Offender Institution. The other applicant, ‘A’, was convicted of attempted murder in the same incident and subsequently convicted on 30 October 2024 of murder, two further counts of attempted murder, possession of a firearm with intent to endanger life, possession of a bladed article, affray, and two counts of possession with intent to supply Class A drugs. He received Detention during His Majesty’s Pleasure with a minimum term of 28 years and 8 days. The 2026 appeals concerned renewed applications and appeals against these convictions and sentences.
Court of Appeal Decision
Admissibility of Gang Evidence
The prosecution argued that the co-defendants were involved in a joint, targeted attack as part of an ongoing tit-for-tat rivalry between Hackney gangs and relied on evidence from an officer of the Hackney Integrated Gang Unit. The defence objected that the officer was not an expert within the meaning of Myers v The Queen [2015] UKPC 40. The trial judge ruled the evidence admissible, finding E's association with the Pembury gang relevant to his motive and therefore “to do with the facts of the offence” for the purposes of section 98 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.
On appeal, E argued that the officer could not be considered an expert, noting that he had no personal dealings with E, did not consider himself an expert, had no specific training, and had less than three years' experience in the gangs unit. The Court upheld the trial judge's finding that the officer's service in the Hackney Integrated Gangs Unit gave him sufficient expertise on the gang rivalry.
The Court also upheld the admission of evidence relating to relating to a prior youth caution, holding it demonstrated E's prior association with gang members and was relevant to the alleged motive.
Sentencing: Child Exploitation and Developmental Considerations
The trial judge applied the relevant guideline and the approach to sentencing children and young people and adopted a starting point of 20 years' custody, reflecting A's age at the time of the offence (16 years and 10 months). Had he been an adult, the starting point would have been 30 years; had he been 17, it would have been 27 years. The judge noted, however, that had the murder stood alone, he would have applied a sentence of 24 years, comprising a starting point of 20 years with an uplift of four years.
Both E and A appealed their sentence. E’s appeal was on the basis of the trial judge’s finding in relation to his role and the disparity between the sentence he received compared to that of the other co-defendants, who all received less than him. The Court of Appeal found that although it was a severe sentence, it was not manifestly excessive.
A challenged the uplift and submitted reports indicating an IQ of 75, above average suggestibility, poor recall ability, and that evidence that he had been a victim of human trafficking and modern slavery. The Court considered whether the uplift from 20 years to 24 years was too great, noting that A's developmental age did not match his chronological age and that there was evidence he had been lured into the gang by promises of money and female company.
However, the Court observed that A had made a conscious decision to join and remain in the gang and concluded that the minimum term of 28 years and 8 days was not manifestly excessive given one murder, three attempted murders, drug dealing, and the other offences.
Extension of Legal Aid: Solicitor's Attendance at the Court of Appeal
The Court did allow the appeal with respect to extending legal aid for A’s solicitor in light of the fact that A had a learning disability. The Court noted that it was “very conscious” of all that it had read and the difficulties that the applicant had experienced in comprehension because of his developmental age.
Commentary
This decision confirms that officers with operational experience in specialist gangs units may qualify as experts capable of giving opinion evidence on gang affiliation, even where they have no personal dealings with the defendant, no formal expert training, and relatively limited service.
It also confirms that even where compelling evidence of exploitation, trafficking, low IQ, and developmental immaturity is adduced, these factors may be outweighed by the gravity and persistence of the offending. This was truly an exceptional case given the seriousness of the offending.
For practitioners, this decision serves as a practical reminder that the Court of Appeal has power to extend legal aid to cover a solicitor's attendance and follow-up communications where a young appellant has a learning disability or developmental difficulties that impede their comprehension of proceedings. Practitioners acting for children or young people with such difficulties should consider making such applications, particularly where counsel needs to explain the outcome and implications of the appeal.