Ravinder Singh-Shergil & Vishal Soba [2019] EWCA Crim 847

Singh-Shergil was convicted after trial of murder, Soba was convicted of manslaughter and assisting an offender. Singh-Shergil was sentenced to life with a minimum term of 26 years and 9 months, Soba to 16 years’ imprisonment for manslaughter and 5 years concurrent for assisting an offender.

Singh-Shergil sought permission to appeal against conviction. After retiring to consider their verdict the jury asked four questions, the final question was “did Multani name the assailants in the 6 October police interview”. Multani was a prosecution witness who placed Singh-Shergil at the scene, the applicant denied presence. The answer was in the affirmative. Counsel, on appeal, said it should have been in the negative. The judge and counsel appear to have interpreted the question more strictly; that is asking if assailants had been mentioned rather than who they were. Multani named assailants in his police interview but not the applicant who he named in his later statements. The inconsistency had been at the forefront of the applicant’s case and the jury would be aware from the closing speech and summing-up. In the view of the Court of Appeal the judge was entitled to treat the question as he did.
The submissions on appeal were based on the argument that the four questions should have been answered in a fuller, more contextualised way.

Held: Although the applicant would have liked to remind the jury of his contentions in respect of each of the topics of evidence upon which the questions were based it does not mean that the judge was required to do more than answer strictly the questions raised. Leave was refused.

Soba renewed his application for permission to appeal against sentence. There was evidence to suggest he was the driver of the car which knocked the deceased to the ground, but the judge could not be sure he was. The verdict of the jury mean they were sure he had participated in the attack intending some harm falling short of really serious harm. In seeking leave he argued that given his limited role in the attack the sentence was manifestly excessive and should have been significantly lower than that imposed on his co-accused.

Held: he played an important part in a violent group attack which led to the death of the deceased and assisted in hiding weapons and clothing afterward. The sentence cannot be criticised.