Gurpinar v REGINA, England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division), Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Attorney(S)

Joel Bennathan QC (who did not appear at the trial) (instructed by GT Stewart Solicitors & Advocates (who did not appear at the trial)) for the Appellant Gurpinar
Philippa McAtasney QC for the Appellant Kojo-Smith

Judges

LORD CHIEF

See more information ...

Click here to read the full judgment

Gurpinar v. REGINA

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

These appeals concern whether the partial defence of loss of control should have been left to the jury in two separate murder convictions heard at the Central Criminal Court. The first appellant, referred to as Appellant One, was convicted of murder and possession of an offensive weapon for stabbing a 14-year-old victim in a park. The second appellant, referred to as Appellant Two, was convicted of murder following a violent disorder in a shopping centre where a 24-year-old victim was fatally stabbed. Both appellants received detention at Her Majesty's Pleasure with minimum terms. Additionally, an application by a co-defendant related to the second case was refused on a different ground.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the partial defence of loss of control should have been left to the jury in the murder trials of the appellants.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant One's Arguments

Evidence from witnesses and the appellant indicated that the appellant was either angry or frightened at the time of the stabbing, supporting an inference of loss of self-control.
The conduct preceding the stabbing constituted a qualifying trigger, including fear of serious violence and provocative words or actions.
There was sufficient evidence to satisfy the third component of the defence, considering the appellant's youth and circumstances.

Appellant Two's Arguments

The defence of loss of self-control should have been left to the jury based on evidence that the deceased had goaded and taunted the appellant, constituting a qualifying trigger.
The evidence from CCTV and eyewitnesses supported a loss of self-control resulting from fear of serious violence and provocation.
Once self-defence was rejected by the jury, the partial defence of loss of control should have been considered as an alternative.
The jury could have reasonably concluded that the stabbing resulted from an angry or fearful loss of control rather than deliberate intent.

Respondent's Arguments

For Appellant One, the prosecution argued there was no sufficient evidence of loss of self-control as the stabbing was deliberate and premeditated, supported by prior threats and behaviour.
For Appellant Two, it was contended that the appellant acted deliberately and purposefully, not as a result of loss of control.
The prosecution maintained that anger alone does not equate to loss of self-control under the statutory defence.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
R v Clinton [2012] EWCA Crim 2	Clarification of the statutory defence of loss of control replacing provocation; sequential analysis of defence components.	The court relied on Clinton to define the three components of loss of control and the requirement for a rigorous evaluation of evidence by the trial judge.
R v Dawes [2013] EWCA Crim 322	Interpretation of the loss of control defence components and the judge's duty to consider the defence even if not raised by the defendant.	Used to emphasize the trial judge's duty to assess the defence rigorously and consider all evidence objectively.
R v Jewell [2014] EWCA Crim 414	Definition of loss of self-control as loss of ability to act in accordance with considered judgment.	Approved the interpretation of loss of self-control and supported the court's analysis of the evidence.
R v James Thompson [2013] EWCA Crim 1746	Cases concerning the law of provocation pre-2009 Act.	Rejected as not assisting in interpreting the statutory defence under the 2009 Act.
R v Maxine Williams [2013] EWCA Crim 2521	Cases concerning the law of provocation pre-2009 Act.	Rejected as not assisting in interpreting the statutory defence under the 2009 Act.
Acott [1997] 2 Crim App Rep 94	Judge's duty to leave provocation defence to the jury when evidence might support it.	Referenced in submissions but distinguished as relating to old law; the statutory test requires more rigorous evaluation.
Cambridge (1994) 99 Crim App R 142	Judge's duty to leave provocation defence to the jury.	Referenced but not applied directly due to statutory changes.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court began by outlining the statutory framework for the partial defence of loss of control under sections 54 and 55 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, emphasizing that the defence is self-contained and distinct from the abolished common law defence of provocation. The court reiterated that the defence requires satisfaction of three components: (1) the killing resulted from loss of self-control; (2) the loss of self-control had a qualifying trigger; and (3) a person of similar age and sex, with normal tolerance and self-restraint, might have reacted similarly.

The court stressed the judge's duty to leave the defence to the jury only if there is sufficient evidence on which a reasonable jury properly directed could conclude the defence might apply. This requires a rigorous, sequential evaluation of all evidence, including evidence given by the defendant, and an objective assessment of the weight and quality of that evidence.

Regarding Appellant One, the court found that despite some evidence of anger or fear, the appellant's prior threatening conduct, the video footage of the stabbing, and the absence of any indication of loss of control meant there was insufficient evidence to leave the defence to the jury. The stabbing was deliberate and consistent with the appellant's prior expressed intentions.

Concerning Appellant Two, the court accepted there was evidence capable of showing a qualifying trigger but agreed with the trial judge's assessment that there was insufficient evidence that the killing resulted from loss of self-control. The appellant acted deliberately and purposefully, and the evidence did not demonstrate a loss of control sufficient to satisfy the statutory test.

The court also highlighted the importance of advocates properly structuring submissions in accordance with the statutory criteria and warned against reliance on outdated provocation case law when interpreting the statutory defence.

Holding and Implications

The court DISMISSED both appeals, affirming the convictions and sentences imposed on the appellants.

The decision confirms the strict statutory requirements for leaving the partial defence of loss of control to the jury, emphasizing the need for sufficient evidence on all three components of the defence. It underscores the trial judge's role in rigorously evaluating evidence and the limited scope for appellate interference with such assessments. No new precedent was established beyond the clarification and application of existing statutory law and guidance.