William Deo [2019] EWCA Crim 1388

In William Deo [2019] EWCA Crim 1388, the Court of Appeal (Lady Justice Hallett (Vice President of the CACD), Mrs Justice McGowan and Sir John Royce) refused renewed leave to appeal against sentence.

On 27 November 2018 in the Crown Court at Snaresbrook, Mr Deo was convicted following trial of throwing a corrosive fluid over a victim contrary to section 29 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, a second similar offence, two counts of robbery contrary to section 8 of the Theft Act 1968, assault occasioning grievous bodily harm contrary to section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, and assault occasioning actual bodily harm contrary to section 47 of the 1861 Act. On 17 December 2018 His Honour Judge Del Fabbro sentenced him to fifteen years’ detention in a young offender institution for the first section 29 offence, twelve years concurrent for the second section 29 offence, twelve years concurrent for each robbery, fifteen years concurrent for the section 18 offence and two years concurrent for the section 47 offence, making fifteen years in total. Two other defendants were convicted at the same trial: Mr Badejo and Ms Hajaig. A fourth defendant, Mr Okwu‑Brewis, was found to have committed the acts despite being unfit to plead.

The victims, Mr Raymond and Mr Dubois, were partners who had founded a music video production company. Towards the end of 2017 Mr Okwu‑Brewis and Ms Hajaig had engaged them to produce a music video but the arrangement fell through and the video was never completed. Mr Okwu‑Brewis and Ms Hajaig decided to exact revenge. Ms Hajaig created a fake Instagram account in the name of a female singer called Stafia Star and used it to contact Mr Dubois. After a series of exchanges, she arranged a meeting for 13 June 2018 at an address in Argyle Road, Ilford. Her telephone records showed she had simultaneously been researching the online provision of ammonia. Mr Okwu‑Brewis enlisted Mr Deo and Mr Badejo to assist. On the day, the three men met at the Argyle Road property and waited inside. Ms Hajaig remained outside. When Mr Raymond and Mr Dubois arrived at about nine-thirty in the evening, she met them and said she was the sister of Ms Star and that her sister was upstairs preparing for the video shoot. After waiting outside for about thirty minutes, she led them into the building and began ascending the staircase, then told them to wait while she went ahead. Mr Okwu‑Brewis jumped out of a cupboard in the hallway wearing a balaclava and threw ammonia into Mr Dubois’s face. A second masked man joined the attack and squirted ammonia into Mr Raymond’s face. Both victims fell to the ground. The male defendants repeatedly stamped on them and demanded their backpacks, which were handed over. Mr Dubois was pushed into a corner and punched in the stomach. One of the men shouted at him to open his mouth, which he did, whereupon one man poured ammonia into his mouth while another held his head back. Ms Hajaig stood to one side watching but did not physically participate. All four accused left immediately in two cars, taking the backpacks, which contained camera equipment valued at about £800, a camera lens, a video camera worth over £12,000 and other items including a mobile phone, none of which was ever recovered. Mr Dubois carried his friend upstairs into a flat and they used the shower within minutes. The police were called and the victims were taken to Queen’s Hospital, Romford.

Mr Raymond spent two weeks in hospital. He had swallowed a significant quantity of acid which corroded his trachea, oesophagus and the upper part of his stomach. He had swelling of the soft tissue of the lips, tongue, pharynx and epiglottis and required intubation and ventilation. He was transferred to intensive care, where he was kept under sedation and continued to be ventilated. He had to be fed intravenously and remained in intensive care until 26 June. By the time he was moved to an ordinary ward the oedema and swelling had significantly resolved but it was feared he would continue to have problems eating and drinking. He also suffered broken ribs and a dislocated shoulder, which formed count 5. Mr Dubois was found to have irritation to his eyes and throat and was discharged after initial assessment, which formed count 6, the section 47 offence. Counts 3 and 4, the two robberies, reflected the theft of the two backpacks.

When the property was examined, Mr Deo’s fingerprints were found on the inside surface of the cupboard in the hallway, suggesting he was the man who had appeared from that cupboard when the victims entered. He was traced to a hotel in Seven Sisters Road but had dyed his hair and staff could not recognise him from the police photograph. Shortly afterwards he was seen in North London and tried to escape but was arrested. He made no comment in interview but provided a prepared statement denying involvement. He said he had thought the others were going to a local gym, had no warning of what was about to happen, and had simply stood to one side in shock.

The judge found that the defendants had jointly played a part in the entire incident and that Mr Deo, whatever he had physically done, was a full party to the plan and its execution. It was sheer good fortune that the physical injuries had not had a permanent physical effect. The victims and their families had been profoundly affected. The judge found that all the defendants had been party to a plan to lure the two unsuspecting victims to a location and attack them. The attack had been planned well in advance. Research had been undertaken to obtain industrial‑strength ammonia, not a household product, so as to cause maximum damage. A false identity had been created on the internet and a location unconnected to any defendant had been found. The attack was designed to overwhelm and beat the victims into handing over their equipment. Ms Hajaig had played her part by luring them there, encouraging them to wait and persuading them that the person they had come to meet was on the premises. The male defendants had worn tracksuits, hoodies, facemasks and gloves. Ammonia was a terrible weapon. It had been deliberately squirted into the victims’ faces and one had been forced to swallow a substantial quantity. The offences were motivated by unhappiness over a commercial deal that had gone wrong. The judge described the defendants as cold, callous and cruel. He did not detect any remorse or regret.

As to Mr Deo specifically, he was twenty years old at the time of sentence. He had a very difficult and troubled background, which was no excuse for the pain and suffering he had jointly inflicted. He had a lengthy and serious criminal record, although it disclosed no offences of violence or involving a weapon. He had been released from custody only about ten days before becoming involved in the plan. The other two defendants sentenced on the same date also had matters to be said for and against them. Mr Badejo was thirty at sentence and had an unpleasant record of criminal offences which the judge summarised as amounting to a violent streak. Ms Hajaig was nineteen at sentence and had also had a very difficult background. She had no previous convictions, which was a matter of substantial mitigation, and was the mother and carer of a young child. The judge considered whether the defendants were dangerous but did not reach that conclusion. He had regard to the relevant sentencing guideline. He took the view that this was a higher level of culpability given the planning, the use of a weapon and the nature of that weapon, and the use of significant force. The level of harm caused to one victim fell into the highest category. He set the sentences at fifteen years for the two male defendants and ten for the female defendant.

Mr Wise, who appeared both at trial and on the renewed application, advanced three submissions. First, no proper distinction had been made between the two male defendants given the significant distinction in their ages and maturity: Mr Deo being twenty and Mr Badejo thirty at sentence. Secondly, a greater distinction should have been made to match the difference in their previous records, Mr Deo having nothing for violence or possession of weapons. Thirdly, no sufficient reduction was afforded to reflect the significant features of personal mitigation available to Mr Deo. The court accepted that a greater distinction might have been made to reflect the difference in ages, but said that appeared to have been to the advantage of Mr Badejo rather than to Mr Deo’s disadvantage. Equally a distinction might have been made in terms of previous convictions, but again the older defendant may have received the benefit of that distinction. The court accepted the personal mitigation available to Mr Deo but noted that there was much to be said on behalf of Mr Badejo by way of character references and that Ms Hajaig had no previous convictions at all and was the mother and carer of a young child.

The court referred to the remarks of the single judge, who had noted that the trial judge, having presided over a trial lasting almost three weeks, had seen and was best placed to make an assessment of the individuals concerned and was entitled to pass the same sentence on Mr Deo as on Mr Badejo based on his assessment of all the evidence. The court accepted that a greater distinction might have been made to reflect the difference in ages, but said that had such a distinction been made on the facts, it would merely have achieved a greater sentence for the older defendant. Looking at whether the sentence passed on Mr Deo could properly be described as manifestly excessive or wrong in principle, the court held that those were not arguable submissions. A sentence of fifteen years for the total offending following trial, given his record notwithstanding his age, could not arguably be said to be manifestly excessive. In short, the renewed application for leave to appeal was refused.