Esprit & Ors, v R [2014] EWCA Crim 1918 (03 October 2014)

Esprit & Ors, v R [2014] EWCA Crim 1918 (03 October 2014)

The circumstantial and cell-site evidence provided a sufficient basis for the jury to convict the defendants of participation in the robberies; the trial judge's directions on cross-admissibility, propensity, and adverse inference from silence were correct; the verdicts were not inconsistent; and the original sentences were unduly lenient given the seriousness and planning of the offences, warranting increased sentences.

Citation
[2014] EWCA Crim 1918
Parties
Appellant/defendant: Curtis Esprit; Appellant/defendant: Christopher Sorhaindo; Appellant/defendant: Fareed Rasheed; Respondent: Regina
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 October 2014
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal and Attorney General's Reference / Court of Appeal Judgment on Conviction Appeals and Sentence Reference
Outcome
Appeals against conviction refused; sentences increased on Attorney General's reference
Legal Topics
Robbery, Joint Enterprise, Circumstantial Evidence, Cross Admissibility, Propensity Evidence, Sentencing, Attorney General's Reference, No Case to Answer, Adverse Inference From Silence
Criminal Law Robbery Joint Enterprise Circumstantial Evidence Cross Admissibility Propensity Evidence Sentencing Attorney General's Reference +2 more

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 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Curtis Esprit

Appellant/defendant

Christopher Sorhaindo

Appellant/defendant

Fareed Rasheed

Appellant/defendant

Regina

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal and Attorney General's Reference / Court of Appeal Judgment on Conviction Appeals and Sentence Reference

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in refusing submissions of no case to answer on robbery charges
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge misdirected the jury on cross-admissibility and propensity evidence
  3. 3 Whether the verdicts were inconsistent and thus unsafe

Ratio Decidendi

The circumstantial and cell-site evidence provided a sufficient basis for the jury to convict the defendants of participation in the robberies; the trial judge's directions on cross-admissibility, propensity, and adverse inference from silence were correct; the verdicts were not inconsistent; and the original sentences were unduly lenient given the seriousness and planning of the offences, warranting increased sentences.

Court Disposition

Appeals against conviction refused; sentences increased on Attorney General's reference

Orders

  • Applications for leave to appeal convictions refused for all three defendants
  • Sentences on Corals robbery (count 1) increased to 5 years' imprisonment for each defendant