Factual and Procedural Background
On 25 April 2019, in the Crown Court at The City, the Appellant was convicted of murder and possession of a bladed article. At the time, the Appellant was 18 years old. The Appellant received a life sentence with a minimum term of 17 years less 121 days, accounting for time spent on remand or under curfew. An 18-month concurrent detention in a young offender institution was imposed for the bladed article offence.
The Appellant applied for leave to appeal against both conviction and sentence, but the application was 717 days late. A single judge refused to extend time for the conviction appeal, finding no unsafe element in the trial, but referred the sentence appeal to the full court. The Appellant renewed the conviction appeal before the full court, which adjourned it to be heard with the sentence appeal. The hearing on the conviction appeal took place on 29 June 2023, fully argued with written and oral submissions. Subsequent written submissions addressed late disclosure issues, which the court considered without further oral argument.
The facts leading to the conviction involved the killing of a 23-year-old man (the victim). The Appellant and the victim had met days before the incident and socialised with friends and family on the night of the killing. A knife was taken from the Appellant’s home that evening, with the jury concluding the Appellant had taken it. After a night out, an altercation occurred outside a car, during which the victim grabbed the Appellant and made threatening gestures. The Appellant stabbed the victim once in the chest, causing his death within minutes.
The Appellant’s case at trial was that the stabbing was not deliberate, occurring during a struggle when she was scared and unaware she was holding the knife. The jury was directed to consider whether the stabbing was deliberate, whether it was unlawful (considering self-defence), the necessary intent for murder, and whether diminished responsibility applied based on psychiatric evidence.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the trial judge erred in not leaving the partial defence of loss of control to the jury.
- Whether the judge’s summing up on self-defence was inadequate or unbalanced.
- Whether the handling of evidence relating to the Appellant’s allegation of rape in 2015 and associated psychiatric evidence undermined the safety of the conviction.
- Whether fresh evidence relating to the prosecution psychiatrist’s professional competence should be admitted and affects the conviction’s safety.
- Whether the application for leave to appeal against conviction should be granted.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The trial judge should have left the partial defence of loss of control to the jury, as there was sufficient evidence of a qualifying trigger and loss of self-control.
- The judge’s directions on self-defence were incomplete and unbalanced, failing to clarify the irrelevance of knife-carrying propensity to self-defence and the relevance of intent to the reasonableness of force used.
- The prosecution mishandled evidence relating to the 2015 rape allegation, particularly the use of Facebook messages to undermine credibility without proper bad character application, leading to unfairness.
- The prosecution psychiatrist’s evidence was discredited by subsequent findings of professional failings and disclosure issues, warranting admission of fresh evidence and undermining the conviction.
- Fresh psychiatric evidence from other experts supports diminished responsibility and should be considered.
Appellee's Arguments
- The judge was correct to refuse to leave the loss of control defence as there was no sufficient evidence that the Appellant lost self-control at the time of the stabbing.
- The judge’s summing up on self-defence was proper and balanced, with no requirement to direct that propensity to carry knives was irrelevant to self-defence.
- The evidence relating to the rape allegation was relevant to the case and properly handled; bad character provisions did not apply as the issue was factually material to diminished responsibility.
- There was no disclosure failure in relation to the prosecution psychiatrist; the issues raised post-trial do not affect the safety of the conviction.
- The fresh psychiatric evidence is confirmatory or of marginal significance and does not affect the outcome.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent |
Rule or Principle Cited For |
Application by the Court |
| R v Goodwin [2018] EWCA Crim 2287 |
Guidance on the judge’s role in leaving the partial defence of loss of control to the jury. |
The court applied the principles, emphasizing the requirement for sufficient evidence and a rigorous evaluation, supporting the trial judge’s decision not to leave the defence. |
| R v Rejmanski [2017] EWCA Crim 2061 |
Interpretation of the “circumstances of D” for loss of control defence, excluding conditions affecting general capacity for tolerance or self-restraint. |
The court relied on this to reject the argument that PTSD should be considered in assessing the normal degree of tolerance and restraint. |
| R v James and others [2018] EWCA Crim 285 |
Issues relating to self-defence directions. |
The court noted the precedent but did not need to address it in depth for this case. |
| R v Choudhuri [2019] EWCA Crim 2341 |
Assessment of psychiatric evidence and expert witness credibility. |
The court distinguished the criticisms of the prosecution psychiatrist’s evidence in that case from the current case, finding no discrediting effect here. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court carefully analysed the evidence and legal principles relating to each ground of appeal. Regarding loss of control, it applied the statutory criteria under sections 54 and 55 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, concluding that there was no sufficient evidence of loss of self-control at the time of the stabbing. The court emphasized the trial judge’s advantage in assessing evidence and the requirement for a rigorous evaluation, in line with R v Goodwin.
On self-defence, the court found the judge’s directions appropriate and balanced. It rejected the argument that the judge should have excluded propensity evidence from the self-defence consideration, noting its relevance to deliberateness and reasonableness of force. The court also found no error in not explicitly linking intent to the reasonableness of force, as the general direction sufficed.
Regarding the handling of the rape allegation and related psychiatric evidence, the court held that the evidence was relevant to the diminished responsibility defence and did not constitute bad character evidence requiring special handling. It concluded that the prosecution’s use of Facebook messages to challenge credibility was proper and that the jury was adequately directed on assessing such evidence.
The court addressed criticisms of the prosecution psychiatrist’s evidence arising post-trial. It found that prior judicial criticisms did not discredit the psychiatrist’s evidence in this case. Disclosure issues raised during the appeal were found to be either disclosed at trial or irrelevant. The court held that the psychiatrist’s evidence had to be judged on its merits and that the fresh evidence did not undermine the safety of the conviction.
The court also considered fresh evidence from other experts and found it largely confirmatory or of marginal significance, insufficient to alter the trial outcome.
Holding and Implications
The court REFUSED the renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction.
The application for leave to appeal against sentence remains to be heard at a future date. The court noted that the same full constitution is not required for the sentence appeal, but at least one member of the current court should participate.
This decision upholds the safety of the conviction and does not set new precedent beyond the application of established principles. The direct effect is the denial of the conviction appeal, maintaining the original verdict and sentence as lawful and appropriate.