R v Marvin Edokpolo & Anor [2025] EWCA Crim 1534

WARNING: reporting restrictions may apply to the contents transcribed in this document, particularly if the case concerned a sexual offence or involved a child. Reporting restrictions prohibit the publication of the applicable information to the public or any section of the public, in writing, in a broadcast or by means of the internet including social media. Anyone who receives a copy of this transcript is responsible in law for making sure that applicable restrictions are not breached. A person who breaches a reporting restriction is liable to a fine and/or imprisonment. For guidance on whether reporting restrictions apply, and to what information, ask at the court office or take legal advice. This Transcript is Crown Copyright.  It is not to be reproduced in whole or in part other than in accordance with relevant licence or with the express consent of the Authority.  All rights are reserved.[2025] EWCA Crim 1534
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION
London
WC2A 2LL
ON APPEAL FROM THE CROWN COURT AT SNARESBROOK
(HER HONOUR JUDGE CANAVAN) [T20237206]
(HIS HONOUR JUDGE AUBREY KC)
Case No 2024/02245/B2 & 2024/03203/B2 Friday 24 October 2025
2024/04533/B2
B e f o r e:
LORD JUSTICE DINGEMANS
Senior President of Tribunals
MRS JUSTICE STACEY DBE
and
HER HONOUR JUDGE LUCKING
(Sitting as a Judge of the Court of Appeal Criminal Division)
____________________
R EX
- v -
MARVIN EDOKPOLO
JOSHUA ALEXANDER
____________________
Computer Aided Transcription of Epiq Europe Ltd,
Lower Ground Floor, 46 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1JE
Tel No: 020 7404 1400; Email: rcj@epiqglobal.co.uk (Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
_____________________
Mr J A Bloomer KC and Miss L Tai appeared on behalf of the Applicant Marvin Edokpolo
Miss C Donnelly appeared on behalf of the Appellant Joshua Alexander
Mr M Fenhalls KC and Miss L Organ appeared on behalf of the Crown
____________________
J U D G M E N T
Approved
Between
Marvin Edokpolo & AnorDefendantRCrownDate 2025-10-24
[1]The applicant, Marvin Edokpolo, who was born on 10 May 2005, was convicted on 22 May 2024 of attempted murder, following a trial in the Crown Court at Snaresbrook which took place before Her Honour Judge Canavan and a jury. The attempted murder was of Hakeemm Malone. It took place at the Hackney Central railway station on 1 March 2023. On 7 August 2024, the applicant was sentenced to 22 years and three months' detention in a Young Offender’s Institution. He renews his applications for leave to appeal against both conviction and sentence following refusal by the single judge. There is also an application for a short extension of time. Given the circumstances giving rise to the need for the extension of time we will grant the extension of time if the proposed grounds are arguable.[2]The appellant, Joshua Alexander, was born on 4 February 2007. He was a co-defendant of Mr Edokpolo in the trial at Snaresbrook Crown Court. He was also convicted of attempted murder following the trial.[3]On 26 July 2024, at the Central Criminal Court, Mr Alexander also pleaded guilty to two counts of possession with intent to supply Class A drugs (cocaine). That related to drugs found on his subsequent arrest on 8 December 2023.[4]On 30 October 2024, following a trial at the Central Criminal Court before His Honour Judge Aubrey KC and a jury, Mr Alexander was convicted of murder, two counts of attempted murder, possession of a firearm with intent to endanger life, possession of a bladed article, and affray. The murder was of Lianne Gordon on 5 December 2023. The attempted murders were of Raheem Tan-Ming and Amani Adamas-McGuire. On 2 December 2024, Mr Alexander was sentenced to Detention during His Majesty’s Pleasure for a minimum term of 28 years and eight days (being 29 years less time spent on remand pending his trial). Mr Alexander appeals against that sentence with the leave of the single judge.[5]Mr Bloomer KC appears on behalf of the applicant, Mr Edokpolo. Miss Donnelly appears on behalf of the appellant, Mr Alexander on his appeal against sentence. Mr Fenhalls KC and Miss Organ appear on behalf of the prosecution in respect of Mr Alexander's appeal against sentence. We are very grateful for all of the helpful written and oral submissions.

The first attempted murder on 1 March 2023

[6]On 1 March 2023, so when Mr Edokpolo was aged 17 years and nine months, and Mr Alexander was aged 16 years (having turned 16 years the previous month), Mr Malone, the first victim, was on a train travelling from Stratford to Hackney Central. Mr Alexander was on the same train and, during that journey, was in telephone communication with the applicant, Mr Edokpolo. Both Mr Malone and Mr Alexander got off the train at Hackney Central station. Mr Malone went towards the lifts.[7]Three co-defendants, Hanzell Greenaway, Jaheim Thomas and Elisandro Pinto-Alves had been in McDonald's in Mare St, Hackney. They had received a phone call. Mr Greenaway, accompanied by Mr Thomas and Mr Pingo-Alves, left at speed on their bikes. There was contact between Mr Edokpolo and Mr Greenaway at that time via Snapchat.[8]They rode to Hackney Central station. Mr Greenaway was in telephone contact with Mr Edokpolo on the journey. They forced their way through the gates into the station and found Mr Malone at the lift. Mr Greenaway attacked him with a knife, Mr Thomas shot him, and Mr Pinto-Alves also tried to stab him.[9]Mr Malone suffered three penetrating chest wounds, a wound to his arm and a gunshot wound to his leg. There was intervention by the HEMS medical team en route to the hospital which saved him from dying from the stab wound that had penetrated his heart.[10]The prosecution case, which was accepted by the jury, as was apparent from the Route to Verdict which set out the way in which the jury should approach the case, and accepted by the judge when sentencing, was that this was a joint, targeted attack as part of an ongoing tit-for-tat rivalry between Hackney gangs, to which the victim and the co-accused were associated. Mr Alexander relayed information from the train to Mr Edokpolo, who in turn updated Mr Greenaway, so that Mr Greenaway, Mr Thomas and Mr Pinto-Alves could carry out the attack and kill the victim.[11]Part of the prosecution case was background information on gangs and gang activity. Following a ruling by the judge, there were agreed admissions. Evidence was given from an officer of the Hackney Integrated Gang Unit detailing the rivalry between the London Fields gang and the Pembury gang, gang recruitment tactics, their hierarchy and their territories, previous violent incidents between those gangs and their groups, and evidence of the affiliation of each of the co-defendants with the gangs. One of the admissions related to what was alleged to be a gang-related incident in which Mr Edokpolo was involved.[12]There was telephone communication evidence, in particular between Mr Alexander, Mr Edokpolo and Mr Greenaway. There was also telephone download evidence, showing contact, images and videos made after the attack, including the lyrics of a song recorded in a voice note on a phone held by Mr Thomas that the prosecution contended was a confession to the attempted murder. There was forensic evidence taken from a phone charger dropped at the scene, which assisted in the identification of Mr Greenaway. The firearm which was used in the attack was found underneath the vehicle in which Mr Thomas, Mr Greenaway and Mr Pinto-Alves were travelling when they were arrested two days later. A flick knife, which was similar to or the same weapon as that used in the attack, was recovered from Mr Greenaway on his arrest.

Mr Alexander's further offending

[13]Mr Alexander was released on bail in respect of the offence of attempted murder of Mr Malone. It is relevant to note that it is apparent from the report from Mr Carswell, an expert on human trafficking, and from the pre-sentence report prepared on Mr Alexander following his convictions, that he had been removed in the past from the area because of his involvement with gangs, but he had rejected attempts by his parents and others to assist and he had moved back to continue offending.[14]Mr Alexander breached a bail condition not to enter Hackney and he committed further offences on 2 and 5 December 2023. On a daily basis he returned to "the gang hub" at 8 Bodney Road, from where he was supplying Class A drugs. He was aged 16 years nine months on 2 December 2023, and 16 years and ten months on 5 December 2023.[15]On 2 December 2023, Mr Alexander cycled to No. 1 Vine Close, an address which was in rival gang territory. He was armed with a machete and a firearm. He and another person test fired the gun in a park and filmed it. At Vine Close, the gun was discharged four times, although no one was injured on that occasion.[16]Mr Alexander returned again on 5 December to Vine Close. This time he was alone, but he had the same gun in his possession. He intended to kill members of a rival gang. He shot at Mr Raheem Tan-Ming and Mr Amani Adams-Maguire, as they sat outside the address at which the fatal shooting took place. Mr Alexander believed that another gang member was at the address. He shot through the front door of the address. Ms Gordon was hit in the head and she was killed. Ms Gordon was not the intended target. She was a 42 year old innocent mother of two children. She was killed inside her own home, having just returned from a family holiday in Jamaica. In total that day, Mr Alexander fired the gun on eight separate occasions.[17]On his arrest on 8 December, a quantity of Class A drugs was found at Mr Alexander's home address.

Matters relevant to Mr Edokpolo's renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction

[18]We turn to the proposed grounds of appeal against conviction advanced on behalf of Mr Edokpolo.[19]The first ground of appeal is that the gang evidence specific to the applicant was wrongly admitted because it did not meet the standard for expert evidence set out in Myers v The Queen [2015] UKPC 40; [2016] AC 314, and the finding that Police Constable Wright (from whom it came) was an expert was wrong on the evidence before the judge.[20]The prosecution had asserted that the motive for the attack on Mr Malone was an ongoing gang rivalry between the London Fields gang and the Pembury E98 or E9 gangs. The prosecution sought to rely on general evidence regarding the rivalry and violent incidents between the two gangs. They also sought to rely on the evidence of PC Wright, an officer from the Hackney Integrated Gangs Unit. In respect of Mr Edokpolo, they sought to rely on the evidence of PC Wright to show that he was a committed member of the Pembury gang and other evidence showing his association with the gang.[21]At trial, the defence objected to this evidence, on the basis that PC Wright was not an expert and so could not give opinion evidence, and that his statement was inadmissible. Even if it was admissible, the evidence was of such poor quality as to be worthless. The judge ruled that the evidence of Mr Edokpolo's association with the Pembury gang was capable of being evidence of motive for him to be party to the attack and therefore "to do with the facts of the offence" for the purposes of section 98 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (CJA 2003). The judge also held evidence of the gang association was relevant to an important matter in issue between the prosecution and defence for the purposes of section 101(1)(d) of the CJA 2003, namely whether his communication with the other co-defendants at the relevant time was innocent or not.[22]The judge ruled that PC Wright was capable of giving expert evidence. PC Wright had set out his expertise regarding Hackney gangs and Mr Edokpolo in particular, and the limitations of that expertise. His initial statement contained a number of bald assertions, but he had provided further information and evidence at the request of the judge. Having considered Myers and the Criminal Procedure Rules, the judge considered that PC Wright was capable of being an expert and to give his opinion on whether Mr Edokpolo was associated with the Pembury gang. The defence had information which could be deployed in cross-examination and could point out any deficiencies in the evidence.[23]The jury were directed to use the evidence for the limited purpose for which it was admitted, namely, for motive and to rebut innocent association between the co-defendants.[24]In his submissions this morning before us, Mr Bloomer KC highlighted that PC Wright had no personal dealings with Mr Edokpolo, PC Wright did not consider himself to be an expert, and he had had no specific training. His experience with the gangs unit was of less than three years' duration. There was a sharp contrast between this case and other cases where similar evidence had been admitted.[25]In our judgment, as to the first proposed ground of appeal, the judge was right to find that PC Wright was capable of giving expert evidence about the rivalry between the two gangs. He had been in the Hackney Integrated Gangs Unit, and had sufficient expertise about the rivalry. The judge was entitled to find that the evidence was to do with the facts of the case, because it provided the alleged motive for the attack on Mr Malone.[26]Following the judge's ruling there were admissions made in respect of some of the evidence to be given by PC Wright. PC Wright was called, gave evidence and was cross examined on other parts of the evidence. We have read carefully the judge's summing up and can see no basis for finding that this was not material that the jury could consider. We agree that there were differences with other cases. There was, however, in our judgment, admissible evidence relating to Mr Edokpolo's association with the gang and that was relevant, given the facts of the case. The first proposed ground is not arguable.[27]The second proposed ground of appeal is in relation to some specific part of the gang related evidence. It was submitted that the evidence about Mr Edokpolo’s caution as a youth and conviction carried no probative force in relation to any important matter in issue for the purposes of section 101(d) of the CJA 2003. This did not assist in determining any important matter in issue. Accordingly, it was submitted, it should not have passed through the gateway, or it should have been excluded under section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, or section 101(3) of the CJA 2003.[28]There was an agreed fact that Mr Edokpolo was arrested following the banging on a door of a victim, who was said at the time to be at risk of being "shanked". Mr Edokpolo was in company with other persons. The main submission was that this was unfair because Mr Edokpolo might have been subjected to pressure on the day to join in that event. It did not show any gang related issues.[29]In our judgment, this was evidence which was properly admitted through the gateways through which the judge had admitted it. It showed a number of matters. Most relevantly it showed evidence that Mr Edokpolo had associated with persons who were said to be members of the gang, which was relevant to the alleged motive for the attack on Mr Malone. We accept the point that Mr Bloomer has made that that is not the end of the matter, because there is the question of an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings. In our judgment, however, this was evidence which the jury were entitled to assess, and could assess fairly. There is no suggestion in any of the judge's summing up that Mr Edokpolo could have been convicted wholly or partly on the evidence of this matter. For all those reasons we reject the second ground.[30]The third proposed ground is that

the judge made a comment in her factual summing-up, when she said:

"I am not saying disregard his point but there is no evidence as to whether you can have a Snapchat call at the same time as a telephone voice call…"
[31]The essential complaint in relation to this is that such a comment misrepresented the central point made on behalf of Mr Edokpolo, who had not given evidence, and that it was an unfair devaluation of the point made on his behalf.[32]The point is that there was evidence of a Snapchat call between Mr Edokpolo and Mr Greenaway. There was also evidence of a telephone call being made at the same time on the same device. The common sense point (as it was put) on behalf of Mr Edokpolo is: why would he attempt to contact someone with whom he is on a call? The judge's comment was as follows:
"So, with the greatest respect to Mr Bloomer, you are deciding this case on the evidence, and there is no evidence on this point. I am not saying disregard his points, but I am simply saying that there is no evidence about whether you can or not – contiguously, I think is the word – have a Snapchat call at the same time as a telephone voice call. Sorry, showing my age – a telephone voice call, and I made the signal. There we are, forgive me."
[33]In our judgment, this was not a comment which undermined the central proposition, which was the common sense proposition advanced on behalf of Mr Edokpolo, to the effect that there was no reason to have two communications with the same person at the same time. We have not, in the materials before us, been able to see whether or not there were suggestions of pocket calls or other explanations for there being two communications at the same time. We do know that the prosecution case was that the co-defendants were waiting in McDonald's because it was a convenient place and that that was the reason for the main contact between Mr Greenaway and Mr Edokpolo. In our judgment, when read in the context of her summing up, the judge's comment cannot have made this conviction in any sense unsafe. The judge rightly pointed out that it was not possible to know whether you could have a Snapchat call at the same time as a telephone voice call. That does not undermine the point that Mr Bloomer invited the jury to consider. It is apparent that the judge had fully set out the defence case in relation to those matters. In our judgment, the third proposed ground of appeal is not arguable.[34]It is then said that all of these errors made the conviction unsafe. For the reasons that we have already given, we do not consider that the judge was wrong to have admitted the evidence or to have made the comment that she did. Having read carefully through the whole of the summing up, we can see nothing that shows that Mr Edokpolo's conviction for attempted murder was unsafe.[35]We therefore refuse his renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction.

Mr Edokpolo's renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence

[36]The offence of attempted murder was found by the judge to be of very high culpability due to the planned use of a firearm. There was no Victim Impact Statement, but the medical evidence showed the gravity of the injury. The judge accepted that the offence was category 2, and not category 1 harm. The starting point for an adult was 30 years' imprisonment, with a range of 25 to 35 years. The judge identified the aggravating features: the offending was sophisticated; it was gang motivated; it was a highly planned attack in public in the middle of the day; a member of the public was used by Mr Malone as a human shield; and the applicant had relevant previous convictions.[37]There were mitigating factors in the cases of Mr Thomas, Mr Greenaway and Mr Pinto-Alves; being their good character and their youth. In her sentencing remarks the judge said that she saw little difference in culpability between the four co-defendants.[38]The question in respect of the sentence is whether it was manifestly excessive. The first complaint made on behalf of Mr Edokpolo is that the judge had sentenced him on the basis that he had given the direction to Mr Greenaway that "the hit was on". In fact, the Crown's case was that Mr Edokpolo was simply a conduit of information from one co-defendant to another. Both assertions are true, because it is apparent that Mr Edokpolo must have reported that "the hit was on" for the actions that were taken by the other three co-defendants to have occurred immediately afterwards. It is also true that he was the conduit of information. We reject the submission that the judge's finding of fact was not based on the evidence, because it was. It was consistent with the rest of the judge's sentencing remarks. There was no irrationality in her findings.[39]We therefore turn to the second proposed ground of appeal against sentence: that having regard to the principle of parity and the roles played by the co-defendants, the extent of disparity in sentence cannot be justified. This is in the light of the judge's statement that "there is little difference between the four of you in terms of culpability".[40]So far as the other co-defendants were concerned, Mr Thomas and Mr Greenaway both were sentenced to 19 years' custody. Mr Pinto-Alves, who also produced a knife, was sentenced to 17 years' custody. Mr Edokpolo, who was not present and did not possess any weapons, was sentenced to 22 years and three months' custody. It is said that the sentence imposed on him was not reflective of his involvement in the offence, as compared to that of the others.[41]We consider that the points as to disparity are arguable, and therefore we will grant leave to appeal against sentence.[42]We will, however, dismiss the appeal against sentence. This is for the following reasons. First the judge, who had presided over a three month trial, was the person best able to evaluate the role of each co-defendant. Secondly there is no doubt that Mr Edokpolo had an important co-ordinating role. Thirdly Mr Edokpolo had previous convictions and the co-defendants did not. Fourthly Mr Edokpolo was also older than the others, although not by much.[43]We have reflected carefully upon all of these matters. We also recognise what has been said on numerous occasions about the difficulty of making out a ground of appeal based on disparity in sentence. In our judgment this was a sentence which was severe, but we are unable to say it was manifestly excessive.

Mr Alexander's appeal against sentence

[44]We turn to Mr Alexander's appeal against sentence. The judge said that the background was all too familiar. It is one of turf wars, territory, violence between rival gangs and consequential tragedy and grief. Mr Alexander fell to be sentenced for intending that no less than four persons be killed. In his attempt to kill one person, he had killed an innocent woman.[45]The judge had heard from the family and friends of Ms Gordon as to the devastation caused by her murder. The judge said that Mr Alexander had shown no remorse for the offending. Instead, he had glorified the attack in drill lyrics which were found in his prison cell.[46]The sentence for murder was Detention during His Majesty's Pleasure. The judge said that the minimum term would be increased to reflect the totality of the offending and that concurrent sentences would be imposed on the other offences. The judge took into account the relevant guideline and the approach to be adopted when sentencing children and young people. The judge found that culpability for the murder was particularly high. The judge took the starting point of 20 years' custody. Had the appellant been an adult, the starting point would have been 30 years. Had he been 17 years of age (he was aged 16 years and 10 months at the material time), the starting point would have been 27 years.

The judge found the following aggravating features:

[47]there was significant planning; the offending was gang motivated; the victim was in her own home and behind her own front door; the appellant was on bail at the time; and the gun had never been recovered.

The judge said that the starting points for the other offences were:

[48]affray, two years' custody; possession of a bladed article, 18 months; possession of a firearm with intent, five years; attempted murder 25 years; and supplying drugs, four and a half years. The judge imposed a sentence of Detention during His Majesty’s Pleasure with a minimum term of 28 years and 8 days (being 29 years less time spent on remand).[49]In the course of his sentencing remarks, the judge said that had the murder stood alone, he would have applied a sentence of 24 years, being a starting point of 20 years and an uplift of four years. It is submitted on behalf of Mr Alexander that that uplift for the murder was too much. Mr Alexander was 16 years 10 months at the time. If the schedule gives 20 years as the starting point, that is the starting point. It was also submitted that when one has regard to what the reports show, Dr Conning's report indicates that Mr Alexander has an IQ of 75. He was above average suggestibility, and that his recall ability was less than one per cent of others. A report prepared by Mr Carswell indicates that Mr Alexander had been, in effect, a victim of human trafficking and modern slavery. He had been kidnapped in May 2022 and threatened on other matters.[50]We have had regard to all of these matters, as well as to the overarching guideline for Sentencing children and young people and the relevant authorities. Mr Alexander's chronological age did not match his developmental age. There was evidence that his motivation was to seek status within his gang, notwithstanding that earning status with gang members was worthless. Such status would have been among other persons who had also probably been lured into the gang by the promise of money or, as the evidence showed, female company, and who had failed to appreciate the wretchedness of their respective experiences. There was, on the evidence, a conscious decision by Mr Alexander to join the gang and to remain part of it, when as the judge put it, many right-thinking young males had avoided joining a gang.[51]We have considered the points made on Mr Alexander's behalf by Miss Donnelly. We have considered whether or not the uplift from the starting point of 20 years to 24 years in respect of the murder alone was too great. However, this was a senseless killing of an innocent and much loved mother. Further, it followed two attempted murders outside the house, where one person had been shot in the leg and another in the buttocks. Mr Alexander had used a gun to shoot through the front door of a house, without any regard to who else might have been present.[52]We have taken into account all that we have read about Mr Alexander. We have also had regard to the particular advantages enjoyed by the trial judge, before whom Mr Alexander had given evidence over a number of days. The trial judge was best placed to decide the fair and proportionate sentence for such extreme offending.[53]We have stepped back from the way in which the judge had structured this sentence and reflected on the fact that Mr Alexander was guilty of three attempted murders, and succeeded in murdering one innocent woman, in addition to the drug dealing and the other offences set out above. In our judgment it is impossible to say that the overall sentence of a minimum term of 28 years and 8 days on Mr Alexander, young as he was, was manifestly excessive. Accordingly, for all of those reasons we dismiss Mr Alexander's appeal against sentence.[54]That leaves one final further application which is for legal aid for the solicitor's attendance at the hearing and in relation to communication with Mr Alexander. We are very conscious of all that we have read and the difficulties that Mr Alexander has had in comprehension because of his developmental age. In those circumstances, we will extend legal aid for the solicitor's attendance at this hearing and for communications with Mr Alexander following this hearing.[55]I should end by noting that both judges commended the police for the excellent work that they had carried out in relation to the investigations of these matters. ______________________ Epiq Europe Ltd hereby certify that the above is an accurate and complete record of the proceedings or part thereof. Lower Ground Floor, 46 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1JE Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Email: rcj@epiqglobal.co.uk ______________________________