R v Marcus Pottinger

R v Marcus Pottinger

The conviction was safe because there was sufficient evidence for the jury to conclude that Mr Pottinger either shared the intention to cause serious injury when smuggling the loaded gun into the club or encouraged Mr Kaba to shoot the victim after he was identified, and the directions given to the jury were adequate.

Parties
Prosecution: Rex; Appellant: Marcus Pottinger
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 March 2026
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Joint Participation, Accessory Liability, Intent, Gang Violence, Firearms Offences
Criminal Law Joint Participation Accessory Liability Intent Gang Violence Firearms Offences

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rex

Prosecution

Marcus Pottinger

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the conviction for wounding with intent (section 18 Offences Against the Person Act 1861) was safe given the evidence and jury directions
  2. 2 Whether the jury's verdicts were inconsistent or unsupported by evidence
  3. 3 Whether the prosecution case against Mr Pottinger was properly limited and explained

Ratio Decidendi

The conviction was safe because there was sufficient evidence for the jury to conclude that Mr Pottinger either shared the intention to cause serious injury when smuggling the loaded gun into the club or encouraged Mr Kaba to shoot the victim after he was identified, and the directions given to the jury were adequate.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • conviction upheld