Introduction

The case of Drake & Anor v R. ([2023] EWCA Crim 1454) presents a pivotal moment in the adjudication of loss of control as a partial defence to murder under English law. The appellants, Jaden Drake and Igors Andersons, were convicted of murdering Christian Patru. Their appeals centered on the refusal of the trial judge to allow the partial defence of loss of control to be considered by the jury. This commentary delves into the intricacies of the judgment, examining the court's reasoning, the statutory framework, and the implications for future cases.

Summary of the Judgment

On 31st May 2022, Jaden Drake and Igors Andersons were convicted of murder in the Crown Court at Chelmsford. The prosecution alleged joint responsibility for the fatal stabbing of Christian Patru. At sentencing on 12th August 2022, Drake received a life sentence with a minimum term of 20 years, while Andersons received a life sentence with an 18-year minimum. The appellants appealed both their convictions and sentences. The Court of Appeal ultimately dismissed the appeals against conviction, upholding the trial judge’s decision to reject the loss of control defence. However, the appeals against sentence were allowed, resulting in revised minimum terms for both appellants.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively references pivotal cases that have shaped the current understanding of the loss of control defence:

• R v Dawes [2013] EWCA Crim 322: Clarified the boundaries between self-defence and loss of control, emphasizing that they should not be conflated.
• R v Gurpinar [2015] EWCA Crim 178: Highlighted the necessity for a rigorous evaluation of evidence when considering the loss of control defence.
• R v Clinton [2012] EWCA Crim 2: Established that the court must make a common sense judgment based on all the evidence.
• R v Goodwin [2018] EWCA Crim 2287: Enumerated a series of propositions outlining the judicial approach to evaluating the loss of control defence.
• R v Tabarhosseini [2022] EWCA Crim 850: Affirmed that mere assertions of loss of control without substantive evidence are insufficient.

Legal Reasoning

The Court of Appeal meticulously evaluated whether the trial judge applied the correct legal standards in refusing to allow the loss of control defence. Central to this evaluation was the statutory framework established by the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, specifically sections 54 and 55, which outline the requirements for the partial defence.

The court emphasized that the loss of control defence is a distinct and more restrictive successor to the abolished provocation defence. The three-stage test under section 54 requires:

1. The defendant's actions resulted from a loss of self-control.
2. The loss of self-control was triggered by qualifying factors such as fear of serious violence or circumstances of an extremely grave character.
3. A person of the defendant's sex and age, with normal tolerance and self-restraint, might have reacted similarly.

The trial judge concluded that the evidence presented did not sufficiently establish that Andersons had lost control. Despite Andersons' and co-defendant Drake's testimonies suggesting fear and emotional disturbance, the judge found this insufficient under the current legal standards. The Appellate Court agreed, affirming that the evidence did not meet the rigorous threshold required to leave the issue to the jury.

Impact

This judgment reinforces the stringent criteria imposed on the loss of control defence, setting a high bar for its applicability. It underscores the necessity for concrete evidence demonstrating a genuine loss of self-control, beyond subjective assertions or co-defendants' character witness statements. Future cases will likely reference this judgment when assessing the sufficiency of evidence required to invoke the loss of control defence, ensuring consistency and adherence to the statutory framework.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Loss of Control Defence

The loss of control defence allows a defendant to argue that their actions were not entirely under their control due to a qualifying trigger, thereby reducing a murder charge to manslaughter. It requires demonstrating that the loss of control was both sudden and triggered by factors deemed acceptable under the law.

Qualifying Trigger

A qualifying trigger can be:

• Fear of serious violence.
• Extremely grave circumstances causing the defendant to feel seriously wronged.
• A combination of both factors.

These triggers must be objectively reasonable and not the result of provocation intended to excuse violence.

Sufficient Evidence

Sufficient evidence means that the trial judge, based on all the evidence presented, could reasonably conclude that the loss of control defence might apply. This does not require certainty but rather that a jury could be persuaded to consider it.

Conclusion

The Drake & Anor v R. judgment reaffirms the rigorous standards applied to the loss of control defence. By upholding the trial judge’s refusal to allow this defence, the Court of Appeal underscored the necessity for substantial and compelling evidence to meet the statutory criteria. This case serves as a critical reference point for both prosecution and defence, delineating the boundaries within which the loss of control defence can be legitimately invoked. Its implications will undoubtedly influence future jurisprudence, ensuring that only cases with unequivocal evidence of genuine loss of control are afforded this partial defence.