GB - Williams v R

Judgment

Lord Justice Fulford :

Background

Introduction

On 16 May 2012 a jury at the Central Criminal Court convicted the applicant by a majority of 9 to 1 of the murder of Steven Grisales. He stood trial alone.

On 13 June 2012 the trial judge, HHJ Marks Q.C., ordered the applicant to be detained at Her Majesty’s pleasure and 10 years 6 months (less 280 days served on remand) was stipulated as the minimum term under section 269(2) Criminal Justice Act 2003 .

The Court of Appeal granted the Attorney General leave to refer the sentence under section 36 Criminal Justice Act 1988 on 9 October 2012; the sentence was quashed as regards the minimum term and the court substituted a period of 12 years ( . [2012] EWCA Crim 2352 ; [2013] 1 Cr. App. R. (S.) 124 )

In these proceedings, the applicant renews his request for leave to appeal his conviction following refusal by the single judge.

The central issue

The central substantive issue raised on this application relates to the admissibility of hearsay evidence of suggested confessions by another individual to the crime of which the defendant was convicted, along with the extent to which the judge ought to direct the jury as to the potential dangers that accompany evidence of this kind. However, there are multiple other grounds of appeal that relate to wide-ranging aspects of the trial and the judge’s summing up.

The incident and subsequent events

Shortly before 7.00 pm on 31 August 2011, Steven Grisales, who was 21 years old, was walking from Joyce Avenue, Edmonton, London N.18 to Silver Street Station. He was on his way home, having had dinner with his grandmother. His route took him along College Cross, where he encountered the applicant, who a few minutes earlier had been caught on CCTV footage in the company of two other males, Courtis Granville and Danele Smith. The applicant was wearing a dark coloured top with a brightly coloured pattern on the front and back, distinctive patterned jeans and a blue baseball cap, whilst Granville and Smith were both wearing dark hooded upper clothing. There were a number of other young people in the street at the time. The applicant and two of his companions who were walking towards Mr Grisales obstructed the latter’s route along the pavement. When Mr Grisales passed the applicant, there was an altercation concerning some conkers that had been thrown by the applicant’s group. Mr Grisales confronted them.

Martin Casey

At this point a witness called Martin Casey