EE, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

The appellant was convicted on 26 September 2023 of the murder of his wife, the deceased, which occurred on 1 June 2022. The jury rejected his partial defence of diminished responsibility, and the trial judge ruled that there was insufficient evidence to leave the partial defence of loss of control to the jury. The appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 25 years less time spent on remand. The appellant renews his application for permission to appeal against conviction, following refusal by a single judge, and appeals against sentence with leave of the single judge. The appellant was represented by Attorney Elliott KC, and the prospective respondent by Attorney Paxton KC.

The background facts indicate that the appellant and the deceased were intending to divorce. The appellant believed his wife was unfaithful, although it was agreed at trial that she was not. The prosecution case was that the appellant's jealousy caused him to lose his temper and fatally stab the deceased in their marital home. The deceased sustained multiple sharp force injuries, including defensive wounds, and a fatal stab wound to the neck. The appellant also had stab wounds which he claimed were inflicted by the deceased prior to his attack. The appellant alleged he was a victim of domestic abuse and presented evidence including contemporaneous allegations and a video showing the deceased injuring their child.

The appellant did not give evidence at trial and made no comment in interview. Psychiatric evidence included the appellant's claim of losing control and a flashback related to the child. The trial judge gave a detailed ruling refusing to leave the partial defence of loss of control to the jury, finding the evidence insufficient to meet the legal threshold. The appellant appeals this ruling and the length of his sentence.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the trial judge was wrong in law not to leave the partial defence of loss of control to the jury.
2. Whether the 25-year minimum term imposed on the appellant was manifestly excessive.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The absence of any premeditation, the spontaneous nature of the attack, and the nature of the injuries support the existence of loss of control.
• The appellant’s immediate comments at the scene ("She stabbed me. I think I've killed her") are significant evidence of loss of control.
• The frenzied and sustained nature of the attack, combined with the appellant's good character and lack of prior violence, indicate a sufficient factual basis for loss of control.
• The minimum term of 25 years was excessive; the correct starting point should have been closer to 20 years, considering the context of the offence and the appellant’s mental and personality traits.

Respondent's Arguments

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the respondent’s legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
R v Gurpinar [2015] EWCA Crim 178	Trial judge must consider the three components of loss of control defence sequentially and may refuse to leave defence if insufficient evidence of loss of control.	The court referenced this to confirm that if there is no sufficient evidence of loss of control, the judge need not consider other elements of the defence.
Goodwin (Anthony) [2018] EWCA 2287	Judge’s duty to conduct a rigorous evaluation of evidence on the most favourable reading to the defendant regarding loss of control defence.	The court found the judge properly applied a common sense judgment and rigorous evaluation in refusing to leave the defence to the jury.
R v Turner [2023] EWCA 1626	Consideration of dismantling arguments in favour of loss of control defence and relevance of factual similarities.	The court found the decision dependent on its own facts and did not find the appellant’s reliance on it persuasive due to material dissimilarities.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analysed the appellant's claim of loss of control by reference to section 54 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2007, which requires that the defendant’s acts result from loss of self-control, that there is a qualifying trigger, and that a person of similar sex and age might have reacted similarly. The trial judge conducted a rigorous and detailed evaluation of the evidence, including the appellant’s failure to give evidence and the nature and timing of alleged abuse. The judge found only weak evidential basis for loss of control, noting that prior abuse was infrequent, not serious, and not sufficiently contemporaneous to explain the killing.

The judge also considered the appellant’s psychiatric reports and statements, but concluded that the loss of control claim was essentially a bare assertion unsupported by sufficient evidence. The court endorsed the trial judge’s conclusion that the partial defence should not have been left to the jury due to insufficient evidence. The appellant’s reliance on the decision in R v Turner was rejected due to factual differences and the principle that that case did not expand established legal principles.

Regarding sentence, the court accepted the trial judge’s findings of fact, including the domestic context, the appellant’s jealousy, and the nature of the fatal attack. The judge had set a starting point of 15 years but elevated it to 25 years due to aggravating features such as the use of a knife and the domestic setting. The court agreed with the judge’s assessment of the seriousness but found the sentence manifestly excessive given the mitigation available, including the appellant’s mental and personality traits and some remorse. The court therefore reduced the minimum term to 21 years less time spent on remand.

Holding and Implications

The court refused permission to appeal against conviction on the basis that the trial judge correctly found insufficient evidence to leave the partial defence of loss of control to the jury.

The court allowed the appeal against sentence in part, quashing the 25-year minimum term and substituting a reduced minimum term of 21 years less time spent on remand.

The direct effect is a reduction in the appellant’s minimum term of imprisonment. The court emphasized that this ruling does not diminish the seriousness of the offence or the loss suffered by the deceased’s family. No new precedent was established; the decision applies established legal principles to the facts of this case.