![]() |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions >> Henkoma, R. v [2023] EWCA Crim 808 (14 July 2023) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2023/808.html Cite as: [2023] EWCA Crim 808 |
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
ON APPEAL FROM THE CROWN COURT AT WOOLWICH AND THE CROWN COURT AT ISLEWORTH
His Honour Judge Shorrock and His Honour Judge Matthews
T20137758 & T20177307
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
MRS JUSTICE MAY
and
THE RECORDER OF SHEFFIELD
(His Honour Judge Jeremy Richardson KC)
____________________
AISOSA HENKOMA |
Appellant |
|
- and – |
||
REX |
Respondent |
____________________
Andrew Johnson (instructed by the Crown Prosecution Service) for the Respondent
Hearing date : 7 July 2023
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
Lady Justice Carr :
Introduction
Facts: the Woolwich offences
Facts: the Isleworth offences
Events following conviction and fresh evidence
The applicant's trial lawyers' responses
Submissions on appeal
i) The applicant's criminality was extinguished by virtue of his status as a VOT. The applicant was a vulnerable child and then vulnerable adult when the offences were committed; he had been recruited and perpetually threatened by gang members and exploited;
ii) In relation to the Isleworth matters, the police had told him to go to his then girlfriend's house. He had been forced to hold the gun overnight. Given the applicant's vulnerabilities and age, the enduring nature of the trafficking and the multiple failures of all branches of the state, prosecution was not in the public interest. The dominant force of compulsion reduced his level of culpability to such an extent that his prosecution was not in the public interest and an abuse of process;
iii) Further, the Crown and/or police did not effect their operational duties under Article 4, as discussed in VCL v United Kingdom [2021] 73 EHRR 9 at [148] to [162], and [197] to [199]. The applicant was not adequately safeguarded, notwithstanding that he had reported being a victim of exploitation to his foster parents. He had made disclosures of his exploitation by gang members to foster carers, teachers and social services.
Discussion
i) How serious is the offence committed?
ii) What is the level of culpability of the suspect?
iii) What are the circumstances of and the harm caused to the victim?
iv) Was the suspect under the age of 18 at the time of the offence?
v) What is the impact on the community?
vi) Is prosecution a proportionate response?
vii) Do sources of information require protecting?
The Bail Act offence
"[The applicant] was bailed to the LA and placed at the Meadows in Wales. He was not happy at the placement as it was far from London and could not have contact with friends. He made threats of breaching his bail so that he could be sent to jail as he wanted to be with other Gang Members…"
This would suggest that the applicant knew full well that breach of his bail conditions would result in custody.
Conclusions
i) The contemporaneous social services and probation records relating to the appellant;
ii) The CG decision;
iii) The appellant's (unchallenged) witness statement of March 2022 as background to the appeal (despite our reservations as to its reliability at least in parts).