4 (of 7) Trial

Sam Hallam's trial commenced in September 2005 at London's Central Criminal Court (the Old Bailey) before Judge Richard Hone QC. His co-accused were Bullabeck Ringbiong aged 20, Pellum McCook aged 20, Jamie Martin aged  20, his brother Danny Martin aged 18  and four 17 year olds.

At the close of the prosecution case, the trial judge directed that four of the defendants be acquitted on the murder charge. A fifth defendant later had the charges against him withdrawn by the prosecution. This left Bullabek Ringbiong and Sam Hallam (later in the trial, Scott White, one of the 17 year olds, was convicted for conspiracy to cause grievous bodily harm and was sentenced to eight years youth custody.

The judge directed the acquittals because the evidence presented against them was so weak in establishing their alleged roles on 11th October 2004 that it would be unsafe to allow it to go before the jury. Sam Hallam's counsel, Robert Fortune QC, submitted that the identification evidence against Sam was so flawed by the end of the prosecution case that he had no case to answer. His submission was based on the highly unsatisfactory testimony given by BK and PH at the trial.

BK's behaviour and testimony, in particular, was at complete variance with his 20th October 2004 statement in which he had identified Sam as the youth who he first saw on a BMX bike and then "standing over" Essayas Kassahun with a baseball bat.

On entering the court, BK was visibly distressed and he twice attempted to leave without giving evidence. After swearing on the Koran, he was heard to say that he had to tell the truth about Sam. He was questioned by defence counsel about the white youth he had seen on a BMX bike:"Did you know him?""No""Describe him""On a bike wearing a hood... I didn't really look at his face".

BK admitted that Sam Hallam was "the only white boy I know from Hoxton, so I said it was Sam".

Questioned about the contradictions between his first and second written statements, he said that when he made his second statement, he had been upset because his friend Essayas had died. He had mentioned Sam Hallam's name because PH had suggested it to him. He confirmed that he could not recognise the boy in question because his hood was tied up tightly so as to obscure most of his face. He did, however, state that this boy was wearing a "Gap jumper.

n light of BK's testimony, the prosecution applied successfully to the judge that he should be treated as a 'hostile witness' i.e. although he was called as a prosecution witness, he should now be regarded as appearing for the defence and cross-examined as such.       

Giving evidence at the trial, PH was challenged as to the accuracy of her identification of Sam Hallam to which she replied "I saw someone who looked like him. If it wasn't him, I saw someone who looked like him".

She also stated that the person she saw was not holding any weapon. Toward the end of cross-examination, she said "I saw someone that looked like him running towards me and when I... was talking to people, they told me it was a Sam and then someone told me it was a Sam Hallam and [her friend] pointed him out to me".

It was then put to her that "the most you can say is that it is someone who looked like him?"  to which she said "yes".  Investigating police officers seem to have made no effort to ascertain the identities of the persons who allegedly told PH that a 'Sam' was involved in the murder. On the face of it, these persons (if they existed) possessed highly material information about one of the murderers. It is remarkable, therefore, that the Operation Yocum team apparently exhibited no  curiosity about the origin of  the rumour that a 'Sam' was involved.   

PH was further questioned as follows: "But you certainly could not say you are sure it was him, could you?""No" In re-examination by the prosecution, PH testified that she had "just sort of recognised the weird-looking features of his face". In police interviews, she described Sam Hallam as having "a really weird-looking face... as if there was something wrong with him... possibly disabled".  While any such assessment must inevitably have been subjective, it should be noted that Sam Hallam does not have any physical or mental impairment. Asked by the prosecution whether she had any doubts about the man she saw with her friend on 13th October, she said "No - I was just looking for someone to blame on the spot really".

Support for Sam came from a prosecution witness who admitted his own presence at the murder scene and who knew Sam well.  He stated that he had not seen Sam Hallam in the group. Unfortunately for Sam, other aspects of his testimony and demeanour were unsatisfactory and in his summing up, the trial judge warned the jury to approach his evidence with caution.

One of the acquitted defendants, Danny Martin had also stated that he knew Sam Hallam. He admitted being present on the night of 11th October and confirmed that he had not seen Sam Hallam.  Scott White from Hoxton was convicted of conspiracy to commit grievous bodily harm. He also testified that Sam Hallam was not present at the murder scene. In cross-examination,
TH (with whom Sam had told police he was playing football on 11th October 2004) agreed that he might have been mistaken about the date he played football with him (and hence in his denial that he had been with Sam on the night in question).TH also told the court that Sam Hallam was definitely not a member of any gang.  Like BK, the prosecution successfully applied to have TH declared 'hostile' and no longer treated as a witness for the prosecution.

Robert Fortune QC for Sam Hallam argued that the identification evidence against him was now too weak to allow the jury to convict him. Not only were the alleged identifications made in difficult circumstances at night in a fleeting, fast-moving situation but both witnesses - whose evidence constituted the sole case against Sam Hallam - had expressed serious doubts in their trial testimony. Their successive written statements contained irreconcilable contradictions.

Mr Justice Hone nevertheless ruled that Sam Hallam's trial should proceed and the statements should be considered by the jury. An important aspect of the case is BK's second written statement made on 20th October 2004 in which he said that Sam Hallam had been the white boy that he had seen on a silver BMX bike and later standing over Essayas Kassahun with a baseball bat with a 5" screw protruding. This statement was the only evidence which detailed Sam Hallam's alleged role in the attack on Essayas Kasahun (in her second statement naming Sam Hallam, PH had said she "could not say exactly what he did..." ).

In his trial testimony, BK effectively disavowed his previous second statement and returned to the position in his first interview and statement made on 13th October 200 in which he had said that he was unable to recognise the youth on the BMX bike.  It is significant that before 2003, BK's second statement would not have been admissible before the jury. The long-standing rule at common law was that where a witness conceded that their oral testimony in court was inconsistent with a previous statement (as BK had done), the previous statement could not be treated as evidence as to the truth of its contents (but only as evidence concerning the witness's own credibility). This rule was changed by government legislation under s119 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 which now allows previous inconsistent statements to be admitted in evidence.

Sam Hallam testified in his own defence. His evidence was entirely consistent with the statement he had provided to police. Mr Justice Hone ruled that this was not a case where it was appropriate for the jury to draw any 'adverse inference' from the fact that he had followed the duty solicitor's repeated advice that he should not answer questions put to him by interviewing police officers.     In his summing-up to the jury at the end of the trial, Mr Justice Hone pointed to the weakness of the identification evidence but in a passage which the Court of Appeal later said caused them 'some concern' he said that BK in his testimony at the trial referred to his second statement 'with which he had agreed in the witness box'. While BK had agreed that he made the second statement, he did not agree that its contents were true. Mr Justice Hone gave the jury what is known by lawyers as a 'Turnbull direction' (in line with guidelines formulated by the Court of Appeal in 1977 in relation to a case involving identification evidence). He warned the jury to exercise caution before convicting the accused on evidence of identification alone and that they should pay particular attention to the circumstances in which the identifications were made such as distance, lighting, time and whether the witnesses had previously known the accused.

On 26th October 2005, the jury found Bullabeck Ringbiong and Sam Hallam guilty of murder. Sentencing both men to life imprisonment, the judge told Ringbiong he must serve at least 15 years in prison and Sam Hallam must serve a minimum of 12 years. /next