R v Bell

Factual and Procedural Background

On 13 February 2009, in the Crown Court at Maidstone before Judge Patience QC and a jury, the Appellant was convicted of murder and subsequently sentenced on 18 February 2009 to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 28 years. The victim, a defenceless 17-year-old girl, was sexually assaulted, strangled with her scarf, and smothered in April 2006. The Appellant denied responsibility, asserting that one of the victim’s associates must have been responsible.

The trial was the third trial on this issue after two prior trials in 2007 and 2008 ended with jury disagreements. After the first two trials, the juries were discharged, and the prosecution sought a further re-trial. The Appellant objected, applying for a stay of proceedings on grounds of abuse of process, which was dismissed by Judge Patience in May 2008. The appeal challenges the decision to proceed with a third trial and also appeals the minimum specified term of the sentence.

The evidence established that the Appellant, a homeless 21-year-old man living in stairwell 4 of a car park in Tunbridge Wells, was present at the location where the victim was last seen alive and where her body was later found concealed in the Appellant’s suitcase. CCTV footage placed both the victim and the Appellant near the car park at the same time, making their meeting inevitable. The victim was attacked, sexually assaulted, strangled, and smothered in the basement of the stairwell. Forensic evidence linked the Appellant to the crime scene and the victim’s body, including DNA evidence on clothing, the suitcase, and the victim’s body. The Appellant initially lied about his presence but later admitted to being in the stairwell during the relevant time.

The Appellant had prior convictions for violence and was implicated in a similar earlier incident involving another young woman. The Appellant denied killing the victim or placing her body in his suitcase and claimed memory loss due to cannabis consumption. Despite jury disagreements in the first two trials, the evidence against the Appellant was considered very strong.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the decision to proceed with a third trial following two jury disagreements constituted an abuse of process or resulted in an unfair trial.
2. Whether the minimum specified term of 28 years imposed on the Appellant was excessive given the circumstances of the offence.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The third trial was an abuse of process and unfair, not merely because it was a third trial, but due to specific forensic and procedural issues.
• The decision to seek a third trial was wrong, and the judge erred in dismissing the abuse of process application.
• The minimum term imposed was excessive, given the absence of evidence that the victim was particularly vulnerable or that the concealment of the body involved dismemberment or destruction.

Prosecution's Arguments

• The decision to proceed with the third trial was reasonable and supported by strong public interest considerations, including the seriousness of the offence and the compelling circumstantial evidence.
• The evidence at the third trial was better focused and included strengthened forensic evidence responding to defence criticisms.
• The minimum term was appropriate, reflecting the gravity of the offence, including the sexual motive, concealment of the body, and danger posed by the Appellant to young women.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court carefully considered whether the third trial constituted an abuse of process or was unfair or oppressive to the Appellant. It acknowledged that while there is no legal prohibition against a second re-trial following two jury disagreements, such trials must be approached with extreme caution and only in cases of utmost seriousness with compelling evidence.

The court reviewed the evidence and procedural history, noting that the Crown had taken considerable care in deciding to proceed with the third trial, including consulting counsel and the victim’s family. The judge had balanced nine factors in favour of the re-trial against several factors against it, ultimately concluding that the seriousness of the offence and strong public interest outweighed the concerns.

The court examined the forensic evidence developments between trials, including the Crown’s "honing" of its case and the introduction of stronger scientific evidence responding to defence challenges. It found these changes reasonable and not unfair or oppressive, as they addressed new defence hypotheses and did not deprive the defence of any opportunity to challenge the evidence.

The court rejected the Appellant’s claims that the third trial was unfair due to repeated prosecution on the same facts or adverse publicity. It emphasized that the third trial was not an appeal against acquittal but a continuation of proceedings where no verdict had been reached. The court also found no unfairness in cross-examining the Appellant on his prior evidence or admissions.

Regarding sentencing, the court accepted that the victim was not particularly vulnerable solely by reason of age but was vulnerable in a broader sense. It upheld the judge’s findings that the victim had been lured to the stairwell and that the concealment of her body, while unsophisticated, was relevant to the seriousness of the offence. The court recognized the Appellant’s youth and absence of long premeditation but concluded the level of culpability was not diminished by these factors.

Holding and Implications

The court DISMISSED the appeal against conviction and sentence.

The decision confirms that a second re-trial after two hung juries is legally permissible in exceptional cases involving serious crimes with compelling evidence, provided the trial is fair and not oppressive or unjust. The court emphasized the need for careful judicial oversight and caution in exercising this jurisdiction. The minimum term of 28 years was upheld as appropriate given the gravity of the offence, the Appellant’s conduct, and the public interest. No new legal precedent was established beyond reaffirming existing principles governing second re-trials and sentencing considerations.