R v Henderson Domingo

This case involved Henderson Domingo's renewed application for leave to appeal against his conviction for multiple robbery offences, including attempted robbery and possession of a bladed article.

TLDR:

• Domingo was convicted of four robberies, two attempted robberies, and possession of a bladed article.
• The appeal focused on alleged misidentification and procedural errors during the trial.
• The Court of Appeal found no arguable grounds for appeal and upheld the conviction.

Henderson Domingo was convicted of four offences of robbery, two offences of attempted robbery, and one offence of having a bladed article. He was sentenced to 14 years' imprisonment, with a forfeiture order of £14,881.09 for cash found in his home safe. The robberies occurred between October 2020 and February 2021, primarily targeting supermarkets.

The prosecution's case was based on witness descriptions, CCTV evidence, cell site evidence, and circumstantial evidence, including the cash found in Domingo's safe. Witnesses described the perpetrator as a black male with a Caribbean or African accent, wearing a face covering and carrying a large knife. Domingo denied the charges, providing alibis and disputing the identification evidence.

During the trial, various rulings were made, including the admissibility of a rum bottle found at the crime scene. The judge allowed this evidence, despite objections that it could have come from any store. The judge also ruled that the jury should decide whether Domingo's actions constituted an attempted robbery.

Domingo's grounds of appeal included claims of wrongful discrediting of his version of events, factual errors in the summing-up, and improper admission of evidence. He also sought to introduce fresh evidence from character witnesses. The Court of Appeal reviewed these grounds and found no merit in them, noting that the trial judge's directions were appropriate and the summing-up was fair.

The Court emphasized that the trial is the proper stage for presenting evidence and that Domingo's disagreement with the jury's verdict was not a valid basis for appeal. The application for an extension of time and the renewed application for leave to appeal were both refused.