R v Carpenter & Others (Norwich Crown Court) August - October 2009

This case saw Sir Desmond de Silva QC and Nick James defend Matthew Carpenter and Roderick Johnson QC defend Aymon Popo against a number of charges including conspiracy to murder and conspiracy to supply Class A drugs.

The Crown’s case was that Matthew Carpenter was the head of a drugs gang who orchestrated a drive-by shooting as a punishment for a drug debt. The Crown alleged that this was only the second time in British history that a machine gun had been used to commit a crime. The shooting itself was carried out by two masked men on a motorbike who fired 38 rounds at a house in a residential area in rural Cambridgeshire.

No one was in the house when the shooting took place and developments in the evidence suggested that the alleged victim had been “tipped off”. This led the Crown to rely instead on charges of conspiracy to possess a weapon with the intent to endanger life. Mr Carpenter was himself some miles away in Essex at the time of the shooting; the Crown alleging that he had “set up” an alibi.

The ‘target’ of the shooting, according to the Defence, was himself a major criminal having been imprisoned for an armed kidnap.

Two Defendants were added to the indictment at the door of the court by the Crown as co-conspirators in relation to the supply of Class A drugs. They turned Queen’s evidence and were described by Sir Desmond de Silva QC in Court as “sickening hypocrites…who left trails of slime behind them when coming to the witness box”.

After a ten week trial Matthew Carpenter was acquitted of any involvement in the shooting and convicted of drugs offences alone.

Both Matthew Carpenter and Aymon Popo were given the relatively new ‘Serious Crime Prevention Orders’ upon sentence. Made for the full five year period, they seek to restrict travel, association with Co-Defendants, use of the telephone system in prison, visitors whilst in custody and much more. Clarity is required on the nature and worth of such an order, made in the case of Matthew Carpenter for 5 years despite the fact that he was given a 15 year custodial term. Questions remain as to whether the imposition of such an order should be considered when looking at totality in sentence. The Defence will return to Court next month to challenge the Orders.