Factual and Procedural Background
The Appellant was convicted twice of the murder of his partner in 2011. His original conviction was quashed in 2015, and a re-trial was ordered. He was convicted again on 1st December 2015 and sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 16 years. The Appellant sought an extension of time to renew his application for leave to appeal the conviction, principally arguing that section 2(1) of the Homicide Act 1957, as amended, contravened Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. He also appealed against sentence with leave.
The relationship between the Appellant and the deceased was turbulent, involving arguments and mutual infidelity. On 28th April 2011, after a night of drug and alcohol use at a friend’s residence, the deceased was found dead following asphyxiation caused by neck compression. The Appellant initially claimed someone else was responsible but later admitted to strangling the deceased twice during an argument.
The defence at trial was two-fold: loss of control and diminished responsibility, supported by evidence of the Appellant's emotional and behavioural problems, including self-harm and mental health issues. Expert psychiatric and psychological evidence was presented, with disagreement over the nature and extent of the Appellant’s personality disorders and their impact on his responsibility.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the legal burden of proof for diminished responsibility under section 2(2) of the Homicide Act 1957 infringes the Appellant’s rights under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
- The correct interpretation of "the circumstances of the accused" under section 54 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 in relation to the partial defence of loss of control, particularly regarding the relevance of mental disorders.
- Whether the trial judge erred by failing to provide jury guidance on the meaning of "substantial" impairment in relation to diminished responsibility.
- Whether the sentence imposed was appropriate, considering the Appellant’s age, maturity, mental disorder, lack of premeditation, and other mitigating factors.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- Challenged the legal burden of proof for diminished responsibility as an unjustified infringement of the presumption of innocence under Article 6 ECHR, seeking to have the burden reduced to an evidential one.
- Argued that the amended section 2 of the Homicide Act 1957 should be interpreted in light of the European Convention and possibly referred to the European Court of Justice for compatibility with EU law.
- Contended that the mental disorder should be considered part of "the circumstances" for the loss of control defence under section 54, opposing the trial judge’s exclusion of expert evidence on this point.
- Asserted that the trial judge failed to adequately instruct the jury on the meaning of "substantial" impairment, which was a key issue in the case.
- Criticised the sentencing for insufficiently accounting for the Appellant’s youth, immaturity, lack of premeditation, and mental health issues, and for placing undue weight on the two instances of strangulation.
Crown's Arguments
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the Crown's legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent |
Rule or Principle Cited For |
Application by the Court |
| Foye [2013] EWCA Crim 475 |
Confirmed that section 2(2) of the Homicide Act 1957 imposes a legal burden on the defence to prove diminished responsibility and does not infringe Article 6 rights. |
The court relied on Foye as binding authority, rejecting the Appellant's challenge to the reverse burden of proof. |
| Asmelash [2014] QB 103, [2013] 1 Cr App R 449 |
Addressed the consistency of legal criteria for voluntary intoxication in partial defences and cautioned against different burdens of proof causing jury confusion. |
The court distinguished Asmelash, noting it did not support changing the burden of proof but related to intoxication issues. |
| Sheldrake v DPP [2005] 1 AC 264 |
Established that any infringement of the presumption of innocence must be examined in the context of the specific facts and circumstances. |
The Appellant cited Sheldrake to argue for fact-specific analysis; the court acknowledged but found no basis to depart from established law. |
| R v Golds [2015] 1 WLR 1030, [2014] 2 Cr App R 17 |
Considered jury directions regarding the meaning of "substantial" impairment for diminished responsibility. |
The court noted no authority requires defining "substantial" and found no error in the judge’s directions. |
| Peters, Palmer & Campbell [2005] 2 Cr App R (S) 101 |
Addressed the relevance of chronological age versus maturity and culpability in sentencing. |
The court applied this precedent to affirm the sentencing judge’s assessment of the Appellant’s maturity and culpability. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court conducted a thorough review of the legal burden of proof in diminished responsibility, reaffirming the binding precedent set in Foye that the defence bears the legal burden on the balance of probabilities without infringing Article 6 rights. Attempts to distinguish Foye on the basis of legislative amendments or multiple partial defences were rejected. The court emphasized that the statutory language leaves no room for fact-specific shifting of the burden.
Regarding the loss of control defence, the court found the trial judge’s directions consistent with section 54(3) of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, which excludes features of personality disorder affecting only general tolerance or self-restraint from the circumstances relevant to loss of control. The judge’s example and instructions were deemed clear and fair, and no error was found in excluding certain expert evidence for this defence.
On the issue of jury directions about "substantial" impairment, the court noted there is no legal requirement to define the term, and the trial judge’s omission did not prejudice the defence.
In sentencing, the court acknowledged the Appellant’s youth and troubled background but found the judge properly weighed all evidence, including mental disorder and lack of premeditation. The court rejected the argument that the sentence was manifestly excessive, emphasizing the gravity of the offence and the brutal nature of the second strangulation.
Holding and Implications
The court REFUSED the application for leave to appeal against conviction and DISMISSED the appeal against sentence.
The direct effect is that the Appellant’s conviction and sentence stand as imposed by the trial judge. The court reaffirmed established legal principles regarding the burden of proof in diminished responsibility and the interpretation of loss of control defences, thereby maintaining existing precedent. No new legal principles were established.