Rowe & Ors, R. v [2022] EWCA Crim 27 (17 January 2022)

Rowe & Ors, R. v [2022] EWCA Crim 27 (17 January 2022)

The conviction for manslaughter against Rowe was unsafe because, on the evidence and the way the case was left to the jury, there was no logical or evidential basis for a verdict of manslaughter as an alternative to murder in the context of a planned shooting. The route to verdict was flawed and did not provide a...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] EWCA Crim 27
Parties
Respondent: Regina; Appellant/applicant: Taalib Rowe; Appellant/applicant: Karlos Gracia; Appellant/applicant: Alhassan Jalloh
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 January 2022
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal (criminal Division) Judgment on Conviction Appeals
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; Rowe's conviction for manslaughter quashed.
Legal Topics
Murder, Manslaughter, Joint Enterprise, Bad Character Evidence, Jury Directions, Alternative Verdicts
Criminal Law Murder Manslaughter Joint Enterprise Bad Character Evidence Jury Directions Alternative Verdicts

Source-derived case record

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Respondent

Taalib Rowe

Appellant/applicant

Karlos Gracia

Appellant/applicant

Alhassan Jalloh

Appellant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal (criminal Division) Judgment on Conviction Appeals

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the conviction for manslaughter against Rowe was safe given the directions to the jury and the evidential basis for manslaughter as an alternative to murder
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge erred in admitting certain bad character evidence
  3. 3 Whether the management of the jury and summing up were fair and balanced

Ratio Decidendi

The conviction for manslaughter against Rowe was unsafe because, on the evidence and the way the case was left to the jury, there was no logical or evidential basis for a verdict of manslaughter as an alternative to murder in the context of a planned shooting. The route to verdict was flawed and did not provide a secure or sensible basis for the manslaughter conviction.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; Rowe's conviction for manslaughter quashed.

Orders

  • Rowe's conviction for manslaughter is quashed.
  • No retrial ordered for Rowe on manslaughter.