LONDON – The convictions of three young Black men for a 2016 murder in Manchester have been referred to the UK Court of Appeal, in a case that challenges the use of racial stereotypes and cultural expression as evidence in criminal trials. The decision, announced on Wednesday, 19 November 2025, by the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), hinges on new evidence that undermines the prosecution's central argument that the men were part of a criminal gang. This development has significant resonance in Kenya, where a similar legal principle known as "common purpose" is enshrined in the Penal Code and raises parallel concerns about collective punishment and judicial fairness.

Durrell Goodall, Reano Walters, and Trey Wilson were convicted in August 2017 for the murder of 18-year-old Abdulwahab Hafidah under the controversial "joint enterprise" doctrine. Hafidah was chased, struck by a car, and fatally stabbed in the Moss Side area of Manchester on 12 May 2016. While another teenager, Devonte Cantrill, was identified as having committed the fatal stabbing, a total of seven individuals, including Goodall, Walters, and Wilson, were convicted of murder under joint enterprise.

The joint enterprise law allows for multiple individuals to be convicted of the same crime, even if they did not deliver the fatal blow, provided they are found to have shared a common purpose and intentionally encouraged or assisted the principal offender. The doctrine has been heavily criticised in the UK for its disproportionate impact on young men from ethnic minority backgrounds.

The 'Gang Narrative' and New Evidence

During the original trial, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) built its case on the assertion that the defendants were members of a gang called "Active Only" or "AO." Evidence presented to the jury included a rap music video and selected images from the defendants' mobile phones. The trial judge, Sir Peter Openshaw, directed the jury that they could infer gang membership if a defendant possessed the rap video.

The CCRC, an independent body that investigates potential miscarriages of justice, referred the convictions after reviewing new expert reports. These reports criticise the prosecution's evidence, particularly the testimony from a police officer regarding gang membership, and argue that many of the images used at trial do not denote gang affiliation. In its statement, the CCRC concluded there is a "real possibility" the Court of Appeal will find that the new evidence "materially undermines the prosecution case." Dame Vera Baird KC, Chair of the CCRC, stated the referral "highlights the need for safeguards to protect defendants against the risk of unfairness from a too readily adopted gang narrative, based on inappropriate labelling."

Parallels with Kenya's 'Common Purpose' Doctrine

The legal principles at the heart of this UK case are mirrored in Kenyan law. Section 21 of Kenya's Penal Code outlines the doctrine of "common purpose" or "common intention." It states that when two or more people form a common intention to pursue an unlawful purpose, and an offence is committed that was a probable consequence of that purpose, each person is deemed to have committed the offence.

This legal framework, like the UK's joint enterprise, is designed to hold all participants in a criminal venture accountable. However, the Moss Side case highlights the potential for injustice when the inference of a "common purpose" is based on subjective interpretations of culture, association, or appearance, rather than direct evidence of intent. Legal analysts in Kenya have noted that such doctrines can become a "drag-net," potentially criminalising individuals based on their associations rather than their actions.

The case serves as a critical reminder for the Kenyan judiciary and legal practitioners to rigorously scrutinise evidence used to establish common intention, ensuring that convictions are not secured through prejudicial narratives or cultural stereotypes that may lack a firm basis in fact. The outcome of the UK appeal could influence legal discourse and jurisprudence on collective culpability in other common law jurisdictions, including Kenya.

Lawyers for the three men submitted their application to the CCRC in May 2023, arguing the original convictions were a "gross miscarriage of justice" resulting from "institutional racism." A similar application from a fourth man, Nathaniel Williams, who was 17 at the time of the offence, is still under consideration by the CCRC. The appeal will now proceed to the Court of Appeal for a full hearing at a future date.