PUBLISHER'S NOTE: "Ademola Adedeji, now 21, was wrongfully convicted for being part of a violent conspiracy, on the basis of his being identified is a "drill" music video. Bot knowing what a"drill music video is, I checked. Here is what I found: (Thank you Google!) "How is drill different than rap? The difference is in the lyrics; trap music, which is another form of rap, may focus on topics like money and drug dealing, while drill rap focuses on the unfiltered, uncensored and blunt brutality and violence of the streets in many of these cities. A lot of the music centers on the rapper's neighborhood and culture.
———————————————————————————
PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "Ademola had attended the police station voluntarily to undergo a police interview. The officer in charge of investigating the case, PC McGregor, interviewed Ademola for a few hours on that one day. From that brief encounter, he purported to identify the Appellant in the video clip.
PC McGregor – a white police officer – made no notes of what caused him to believe that he had recognised Ade. Even during the officer’s evidence at trial, he couldn’t say why it was he believed that the young Black boy in the video was the same boy on trial. However, it was crucial to the prosecution’s case that the two boys were the same, because despite having access to the Appellant’s phone, and all his social media – it was the only photo, video or post the prosecution could point to where ‘Ade’ was wearing blue, and it was the prosecution’s case that ‘blue’ was the gang colour."
-----------------------------------------------------
RELEASE: "Court of Appeal quashes conspiracy to cause grievous bodily harm conviction of aspiring law student who spoke in Parliament," released by Garden Court Chambers, on Wednesday January 15, 2025.
GIST: On Wednesday 15 January, the Court of Appeal quashed the conviction for conspiracy to commit grievous bodily harm of Ademola Adedeji. Aged just 17 years old at the time of the offence, he was sentenced to eight years detention for sending 11 text messages in a group chat, following the murder of his best friend. Ade had been detained for 1181 days, the equivalent of almost six and a half years imprisonment. There will be no retrial.
This historic and important win came following a two-day appeal in December 2024, where JUSTICE, a cross-party law reform and human rights charity intervened, and compelling fresh evidence was called.
In its judgment (Oni and Ors. v R [2025] EWCA Crim 12) the Court agreed with the submissions of Keir Monteith KC and Audrey Cherryl Mogan that:
- The prosecution was wrong to suggest, during the trial and appeal, that there was a single conspiracy with two intents (§82);
- The prosecution and trial judge were wrong to suggest that the acts and declarations in pursuing the separate conspiracy to murder were admissible in relation to the GBH conspiracy (§88);
- Racial bias should not form the basis of any decision in a criminal trial, and the court specifically stated ‘It is vital in any case to avoid the unfair stereotyping of individuals, based on their race, as members of gangs’ (§102).
The Court of Appeal further agreed that the compelling fresh evidence of witness Tyrone Numa meant that Ademola Adedeji’s conviction was unsafe. Ultimately, it was on this ground of appeal that Ademola Adedeji’s conviction was quashed.
MISTAKEN IDENTIFICATION, RACIAL STEREOTYPES AND GANG MEMBERSHIP
During the trial, the prosecution relied on racial stereotypes to argue that a 17-year-old child with no previous convictions, a care worker for dementia patients, rugby player and future law student, was a member of a violent criminal street gang.
A key piece of evidence they deployed was a nine-second video found on the phone of a co-defendant. In it, a young Black boy is seen wearing a blue bandana. There is music in the background, and some words or lyrics are spoken. The prosecution told the jury that Ademola was that boy and that he was rapping.
Ademola had attended the police station voluntarily to undergo a police interview. The officer in charge of investigating the case, PC McGregor, interviewed Ademola for a few hours on that one day. From that brief encounter, he purported to identify the Appellant in the video clip.
PC McGregor – a white police officer – made no notes of what caused him to believe that he had recognised Ade. Even during the officer’s evidence at trial, he couldn’t say why it was he believed that the young Black boy in the video was the same boy on trial. However, it was crucial to the prosecution’s case that the two boys were the same, because despite having access to the Appellant’s phone, and all his social media – it was the only photo, video or post the prosecution could point to where ‘Ade’ was wearing blue, and it was the prosecution’s case that ‘blue’ was the gang colour.
Ademola maintained throughout the trial that it was not him in the video, but someone called Tyrone.
After tremendous effort from Zachary Whyte, solicitor in the appeal, Tyrone was located and called as a witness by Keir Monteith KC. Tyrone clearly and unequivocally told the judges that it was him in the video; that he was a young man with no previous convictions; that the bandana was not his and he was not rapping. However, despite this compelling fresh evidence, and without any evidence to the contrary, the prosecution suggested that Tyrone had come to the Court of Appeal to lie, and that he was not the person in the video. The three Court of Appeal judges concluded that Tyrone was the person in the video, that PC McGregor was wrong, and that it was “necessary to consider the effect of that wrong identification on the safety of Mr Adedeji’s conviction (§122).”
Within the trial, the prosecution also suggested that a screenshot of Ademola holding cash to his ear meant he was a gang member. Ade said he was just mimicking what celebrities do – a phenomenon commonly referred to as ‘money-phone’. In the video, he is not wearing blue and when cross examined by the prosecution, they accepted that that the money had come from legitimate work and never suggested it had come from criminal activity.
Keir Monteith KC and Audrey Cherryl Mogan made detailed written and oral submissions on institutional racism to help explain how it was that a young man of impeccable character, like Ade, and other defendants of good character, could be wrongly accused of being gang members and part of a violent conspiracy, and why it was so important to properly scrutinise the relevance of the evidence, particularly when it is derived from young people’s social media. Expert evidence on gangs, expert evidence on young people and their use of social media, a statement from Kevin Liles, and independent evidence of the money phone, were all submitted to the Court of Appeal by Ademola’s team, but the Court declined to admit these detailed reports as fresh evidence in the final appeal.
Keven Liles, former President of Def Jam Recordings, Executive Vice President at Warner Music Group, and current Chairman and CEO at 300 Elektra Entertainment, said this about the money-phone phenomena:
“At best, the attempt to submit images of a money phone as “gang activity” is breathtaking cultural ignorance and laziness that could have been pre-empted by entering the words “money phone” into any internet search engine. At worst, it is a knowingly cynical and racist attempt to criminalize hip-hop and Black culture. It is disturbing, shameful, and should raise questions about other evidence connected to hip-hop culture submitted by the prosecution.”
The Court of Appeal judgment does not engage in any detail with the comprehensive submissions on race, discriminatory prosecution strategies, and institutional racism within the criminal justice system. Indeed, the court concluded, in the context of this case, it was permissible for the prosecution to suggest that (i) the young Black male in the nine second video was a gang member because he wore a blue bandana, and (ii) that photos of the Appellant (and other co-defendants) holding cash to their ear (even outside of the indictment) could demonstrate gang membership and drug dealing.
In stark contrast, JUSTICE, in their comprehensive third-party intervention, observed that the prejudicial forms of evidence used against the Appellant, as well as the lack of independent experts, are ‘endemic within the criminal justice system’, and made several important observations and recommendations about the wrongful use of stereotypes in this case, including:
- Alleged gang affiliation lay at the heart of the Appellant’s conviction and sentence. This is a common issue in cases involving ethnic minority defendants, especially Black children and young adults. This appeal highlights the problems associated with racial stereotyping and institutional racism, as seen in the wrongful identification made by PC McGregor from a brief video with drill music playing in the background, purportedly showing the Appellant wearing a ‘blue bandana’, and the prejudicial ‘money phone’ photograph, which was used to portray the Appellant as a member of the M40 gang. (2.1)
- JUSTICE is concerned that adultification, combined with misunderstandings of youth culture and celebrity imitation (mistaken for ‘gang culture’), has led to behaviour typical of childish fun being misinterpreted as gang affiliation. (2.13)
- Friendships with local boys, like John Soyoye, was used by the Prosecution to imply guilt by association, denying Black children their freedom of association and misinterpreting innocent friendships as suspicious, treating them as adults without proper guidance. (2.13.3)
- Moreover, the prosecution’s case against the Appellant relied heavily on gang-related evidence, yet the prosecution did not call an independent gang expert, as required by the standards in Myers v The Queen [2015] UKPC 40 […] This is significant because the prosecution admitted that gang evidence was “central” to their case […] The lack of independent, expert analysis meant the evidence lacked the balance necessary for a fair trial and that the jury was not equipped to critically evaluate the gang narrative. (3.1)
QUOTES
Keir Monteith KC said today: “The quashing of Ade’s conviction brings welcomed relief to Ade and his family, but he should never have been prosecuted for the 11 hastily texted messages on a group chat[1]. We all say things we don’t mean, and this was the outpourings of anger from a 17-year-old lad who had just been told his 16-year-old mate had been murdered. Ironically during the alleged conspiracy period Ade authored a book that dealt with stereotypes in Manchester…a few months later he and others were then stereotyped in a criminal trial, Ade was misidentified by the police, convicted of a crime he did not commit and wrongly sentenced to 8 years. That said I am confident that Ade will progress from law student to lawyer and beyond, as he and his co-defendants continue to rebut the stereotypes that were used in this trial”
Keir Monteith KC added: “Meanwhile the injustice continues with Appellants in this appeal, Defendants in Joint Enterprise and rap cases being wrongly convicted and incarcerated. A large proportion of whom are Black. The JUSTICE recommendations need to be implemented immediately; the conspiracy laws need to be reformed and there must be an end to the prosecution calling itself to give evidence in criminal trials.”
Audrey Cherryl Mogan said today: “This case highlights the significant problems and unfairness that can occur where police officers think they can identify a suspect from footage. This is particularly so where the suspect and officer are from different races (referred to as other-race bias by psychologists) and Ade’s case should act as a stark warning. Barristers need to be making applications to exclude poor identification evidence, Courts need to scrutinise this evidence more closely and PACE (Police and Criminal Evidence Act) provisions should not be treated as a mere formality. Too much is at stake.”
Zachary Whyte said today: “I am overjoyed for Ade, who without question deserved this win and his freedom. My thanks to the witness, Tyrone Numa, who bravely attended court, and the community who helped us make contact with Tyrone. The quashing of this conviction is a victory for the community and without the people of Manchester coming together to push back against this miscarriage of justice, we would not be here today. This success is bittersweet, as I represent several co-Appellants who did not have their convictions overturned and this is painful. The fresh evidence aspect of our appeal rendered Ade’s conviction unsafe, but ultimately the prosecution was wrong to bring its case in the way it did, which led to an injustice and our work is not yet complete.”
The whole legal team would also like to thank Roxy Legane of Kids Of Colour – she has worked tirelessly providing support for the defendants, their friends and families. She was the first to point out the injustices in this case and has continued to campaign on this and other cases. Her work is invaluable, important and very much appreciated.
NOTE FOR EDITORS
- The Court of Appeal also granted the appeals against sentence of Omolade Okoya and Raymond Savi. In each case the sentence of eight-years detention was quashed and replaced with a sentence of four and a half years detention (in a young offenders institution).
- In total, four boys convicted of conspiring to commit grievous bodily harm (GBH) and three boys convicted of conspiracy to murder, were granted leave to appeal against their convictions. The Court of Appeal dismissed all other appeals against conviction.
- JUSTICE is a cross-party law reform and human rights charity aiming to create a fairer UK justice system for all, and is the UK section of the International Commission of Jurists, with a rich history of reforming the law in the UK, was granted leave to intervene and make written representations.
- JUSTICE’s recommendations are as follows:
- Use of independent experts in gang-related cases: Mandate the use of accredited, independent experts for gang-related evidence to ensure compliance with evidentiary standards. This would ensure that such evidence is reliable, objective, and free from bias, thereby safeguarding against its misuse and enhancing the fairness of trials.
- Strict application of the Myers test: Enforce the strict application of the Myers test when police officers provide expert evidence, particularly in gang-related cases. This would help prevent bias and stereotyping, ensuring that evidence presented is credible and appropriately scrutinised.
- Enhanced Jury Directions: Mandate specific jury instructions that address the potential prejudicial impact of gang-related evidence and emphasise the importance of evaluating such material critically.
- Guidelines for the use of cultural evidence: Develop guidelines for the admissibility and interpretation of cultural evidence, such as drill music, in criminal trials. These guidelines should aim to prevent cultural expressions from being mischaracterised as indicators of criminal behaviour, thereby reducing the risk of racial stereotyping.
- Procedural Safeguards Against Stereotyping: Implement safeguards to ensure freedom of association is not unfairly interpreted as evidence of criminal intent, particularly for young defendants from ethnic minority backgrounds.
- The case has been extensively reported upon and has been referred to in the Houses of Parliament. See previous media coverage: ITV News, Channel 4 documentary ‘Jailed Over a Group Chat’, PROOF magazine, Kids of Colour Statement
Further information on the case can be found in our previous news item here.
[1] On 8 November the Appellant contributed just 11 out of the chat’s 345 messages within a period of just 20 minutes."
The entire release can be read at:
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue/resource. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at: http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith. Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com. Harold Levy: Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog.
SEE BREAKDOWN OF SOME OF THE ON-GOING INTERNATIONAL CASES (OUTSIDE OF THE CONTINENTAL USA) THAT I AM FOLLOWING ON THIS BLOG, AT THE LINK BELOW: HL:
https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/120008354894645705/4704913685758792985
———————————————————————————————
FINAL WORD: (Applicable to all of our wrongful conviction cases): "Whenever there is a wrongful conviction, it exposes errors in our criminal legal system, and we hope that this case — and lessons from it — can prevent future injustices."
Lawyer Radha Natarajan:
Executive Director: New England Innocence Project;
—————————————————————————————————
FINAL, FINAL WORD: "Since its inception, the Innocence Project has pushed the criminal legal system to confront and correct the laws and policies that cause and contribute to wrongful convictions. They never shied away from the hard cases — the ones involving eyewitness identifications, confessions, and bite marks. Instead, in the course of presenting scientific evidence of innocence, they've exposed the unreliability of evidence that was, for centuries, deemed untouchable." So true!
Christina Swarns: Executive Director: The Innocence Project;
