The appeals of three Bermudians convicted of gang-related shootings have been dismissed by London’s Privy Council.

David Cox, Antonio Myers and Quincy Brangman were each found guilty of offences in Bermuda, with juries hearing evidence about each of the men’s ties to gangs.

Cox was found guilty of the premeditated murder of Troy “Yankee” Rawlins, who was shot dead at the Spinning Wheel nightclub in 2011, while Myers was convicted of murdering Kumi Hartford, who was shot on St Monica’s Road in 2011. Brangman, meanwhile, was found guilty of the attempted murder of footballer Nathan Darrell, who survived a 2010 shooting in Sandys.

While the three appeals regarded different circumstances, the Privy Council noted the cases raised similar questions about the advisability and proper ambit of evidence as to the existence and practices of gangs, along with the defendants’ connection to them.

In a written judgment, Lord Hughes wrote: “In two of the trials (Myers and Cox) the Crown case was that the shooting was part of a longstanding feud between two rival gangs, and was triggered by an incident shortly beforehand in which there had been either insult to, or attack on, someone associated with one of the gangs.

“The shooting was in those two cases said to be a rapid and fatal retaliatory attack, not on the perpetrator of the earlier incident, but simply on some random member of the opposing gang. In these cases the gang evidence was part of the prosecution case from the outset.

“In the third trial (Brangman) the gang evidence was not originally part of the Crown case. It was admitted in consequence of cross examination of the victim, not to prove the existence of a feud between identifiable gangs, but to prove intra-gang loyalty between the defendant and an associate of his who had suffered an insult or attack.

“Thus in each of the cases the gang evidence was admitted primarily to demonstrate that the defendant had a motive to kill the victim.”

In all three cases, gang evidence was put before the courts by Sergeant Alex Rollin of the Bermuda Police Service’s gang targeting unit against the objections of defence lawyers.

Lord Hughes wrote that in the cases of Cox and Myers, Sgt Rollin adequately established his credentials and qualifications, but his evidence contained some bare assertions without the stated basis for them.

“He did not sufficiently distinguish between assertions based on his own observations and contacts and those to which others had contributed,” Lord Hughes wrote.

“The defence must not be left to explore what the sources were in speculative cross-examination before the jury. Nor must the jury be left with overgeneralised assertions, such as that ‘very little’ of the evidence given derives from other people.”

In the case of Myers, Lord Hughes said that Sgt Rollins had been qualified to give evidence of gang culture, feuds and the defendant’s membership to show motive.

While the gang evidence was “beyond admissible” in asserting the drug-trafficking habits of the gang as a whole, the defence put before the courts information about the drug-trafficking habits of two prosecution witnesses.

“In those circumstances the admission of the inadmissible gang evidence of drug dealing had no significant impact on the trial,” he wrote. “In any event the unanimous conclusion of the Court of Appeal that no miscarriage of justice occurred was plainly justified, given the powerful other evidence.”

Lord Hughes similarly said that Sgt Rollin’s testimony in the case of Cox had also gone too far in detailing drug trafficking of gangs, but that the impact would have been “slight” given the facts of the case, so again no miscarriage of justice had occurred.

The Council also dismissed the appeal of Brangman, finding that Sgt Rollin was qualified to give the evidence he did in that case, particularly because it came about as a result of the cross-examination of the victim.

“The evidence of generally nefarious gang activity was marginal, was restrained by the judge, and added nothing significant to what had been adduced in cross-examination,” Lord Hughes wrote.

“The evidence of gang membership was of course damagingly prejudicial, but given the course of the (no doubt advisedly undertaken) cross-examination by counsel then appearing for Brangman, the judge was entitled to hold that the balance of fairness did not lead to the exclusion of the evidence.”

• It is The Royal Gazette’s policy not to allow comments on stories regarding criminal court cases. As we are legally liable for any slanderous or defamatory comments made on our website, this move is for our protection as well as that of our readers.