Pateco-Te, R v [2020] EWCA Crim 196
[1]relation to the violent disorder.[2]The van had been stolen and was carrying false number plates. The van then travelled to Orwell Court estate in Hackney with at least six occupants. Two male cyclists were targeted by the van and six occupants jumped out of it, chasing those cyclists. One of the men in the chasing group was brandishing a large knife and all had their faces covered. The cyclists managed to escape unhurt and the van continued with its occupants into Monteagle Way in Hackney. Just before midnight that evening, three men were sitting in a parked car on the Nightingale Estate in Monteagle Way. The white transit van drove past them and the occupants of that van appeared to the men in the car to be workmen wearing high visibility vests. One of the men in the car, Kaan Aslan, then aged 20, got out to fetch something from another car at which point he and his two friends, Ishmael William Thomas and Daniel Silver, were set upon by the occupants of the van which had reversed at speed to get to them. There were at least five men, possibly more, all wearing face coverings and armed with swords and knives. They repeatedly said words to the effect "Where you lot from?" The two men in the car managed to escape the scene, but Kaan Aslan was unable to do so. He was stabbed repeatedly and suffered a deep 12-centimetre stab wound which entered his heart. He also suffered a deep wound to his back which passed through part of his spine and there was a fragment of bone missing from his forearm. He tried to get away from the group and was screaming out in pain. A[3]blood trail from the scene led to a grass area 30 feet away where he lay down.[4]Aslan. Despite that, and the efforts of emergency services who attended at the scene, Kaan Aslan died from the catastrophic injury to his heart. After the violence, CCTV footage showed the van returning to Burnett Close and the Honda moped travelling back[5]from there to the applicant's home address.[6]motive, the applicant's younger brother being a member of the E9/Niners gang.[7]episode of violence and the murder; periods of inactivity on the phones corresponded with the timing of the attacks. There was also evidence of a crash helmet and gloves similar to those seen on the CCTV footage being worn by the moped rider found at the applicant's home and containing his DNA; and evidence linking the applicant to the transit van, including DNA evidence linking him to two high visibility vests recovered from the van[8]in November 2017.[9]occurred. The defence case was that the applicant was at home throughout the time when the incidents took place. Another man, Mr Israel Ogunsola, who died on 4 April 2018, had come to the applicant's house that evening to borrow one of his mobile phones because it was a line used to sell cannabis, together with his moped, helmet and other items. He later returned with the moped, phone and other items, except the high visibility vests. He appeared to be flustered, said there had been "a madness" and then left. Since his death the applicant felt able to explain what had happened. The applicant in due course gave evidence at trial consistently with that defence. He explained that he had given a no comment interview on the advice of his solicitor and he relied on cell site expert evidence to rebut the prosecution evidence concerning his mobile phones.[10]on to murder Kaan Aslan as part of a joint enterprise with the other occupants of the van.[11]verdict.[12]violent disorder.[13]foreseen that one of the participants would have stabbed the deceased. The alternative of violent disorder is not the alternative contemplated by section 6(2) of the Criminal Law Act 1967. Moreover, in circumstances such as these, R v Jogee (at paragraph 96) supports the conclusion that manslaughter is the appropriate alternative envisaged. Critically she submits, an alternative of violent disorder simply did not give the jury a realistic choice in the circumstances of this case. It was too trifling an offence that did not reflect the full[14]consequences of what occurred and the fact that a death had resulted.[15]left to the jury. Our reasons in summary are as follows.[16]bodily harm[17]violence without the necessary intention.[18]Manslaughter was not obviously raised by the evidence. Once the jury were satisfied that the applicant was in the van and therefore either participating in or encouraging the violence that evening, there was compelling evidence that entitled the jury to conclude that he intended at least really serious harm should be caused. The judge expressly directed the jury that this was required and by their verdict reached unanimously, it is clear this is what they concluded. Accordingly, in our judgment it was not necessary for the judge to leave the alternative of manslaughter to the jury and this conviction is not arguably unsafe.[19]starting point of 25 years.[20]that evening.[21]not alleged to have gang membership. For all these reasons, both applications are refused. Epiq Europe Ltd hereby certify that the above is an accurate and complete record of the proceedings or part thereof. Lower Ground, 18-22 Furnival Street, London EC4A 1JS Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Email: rcj@epiqglobal.co.uk