The trial (2)

Support for Sam's case came from a prosecution witness, CB 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 CB's 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. Danny Martin admitted being present on the night of 11th October and confirmed that he had not seen Sam Hallam. 

Scott Martin 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 Sam Hallam's 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 testimony at trial, 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 almost certainly not have been admissible before the jury as evidence against Sam Hallam. 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). In other words, juries could not take account of the contents of such statements in reaching their verdict. 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 at the trial. His evidence was entirely consistent with the statement he had provided to police. Mr Justice Hone therefore 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 so far as Sam Hallam was concerned.

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