Pottinger, R. v [2026] EWCA Crim 416 (11 March 2026)

Pottinger, R. v [2026] EWCA Crim 416 (11 March 2026)

The conviction was safe because there was sufficient evidence for the jury to conclude that Mr Pottinger either shared the intention to cause really serious injury when smuggling the loaded gun into the club, or encouraged Mr Kaba at the relevant time, and the directions given to the jury were adequate. The verdicts were not inconsistent and were supported by the evidence.

Citation
[2026] EWCA Crim 416
Parties
Respondent: Rex; Appellant: Marcus Pottinger
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 March 2026
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction From Central Criminal Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; conviction upheld.
Legal Topics
Joint Enterprise, Accessory Liability, Wounding With Intent, Possession of Firearm, Gang Related Violence, Appeal Against Conviction
Criminal Law Joint Enterprise Accessory Liability Wounding With Intent Possession of Firearm Gang Related Violence Appeal Against Conviction

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rex

Respondent

Marcus Pottinger

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction From Central Criminal Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the conviction for wounding with intent (section 18 OAPA 1861) was safe in light of the evidence and directions to the jury
  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 to the jury

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 really serious injury when smuggling the loaded gun into the club, or encouraged Mr Kaba at the relevant time, and the directions given to the jury were adequate. The verdicts were not inconsistent and were supported by the evidence.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; conviction upheld.