Sun, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

An application was renewed for leave to appeal against conviction following refusal by a single judge. The appellant, a 24-year-old student at The University, was convicted on 6 October 2023 at the Crown Court at The City for Murder, section 18 Wounding with Intent, and two offences of possessing an article with a blade or point contrary to section 139(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. The appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 24 years, with concurrent terms for the other offences. The convictions arose from an incident on 5 April 2023 involving the appellant, the deceased, and others who were all students at The University. Tensions escalated after a social gathering, leading to the appellant assaulting the deceased and later returning armed with two knives to stab the deceased and another individual, causing the deceased's death.

The appellant contended at trial that the actions were in lawful self-defence, claiming a belief that he and his friends were under imminent attack. The trial judge provided detailed directions on the law of self-defence to the jury. The appellant challenged part of these directions on appeal, specifically the judge's comments regarding the failure to call the police, arguing that it caused confusion and rendered the convictions unsafe.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the trial judge’s directions on self-defence, particularly concerning the appellant’s failure to call the police, were incorrect or confusing such that the appellant’s convictions were arguably unsafe.
2. Whether the expanded direction on the role of law enforcement in the context of self-defence was appropriate and clear for the jury’s understanding.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The expanded direction on self-defence, especially paragraph 11(xiii) of the judge’s written directions, was confusing and gave the jury the impression that self-defence was unavailable because the appellant did not call the police.
• The passage referencing law enforcement authorities and the citizen’s rights complicated the self-defence direction unnecessarily.
• This misdirection undermined the safety of the appellant’s convictions.

Respondent's Arguments

• The comprehensive directions on self-defence were clear and appropriately contextualised the evidence for the jury.
• The directions, together with the Route to Verdicts, were not confusing and adequately addressed the legal issues raised by the appellant’s case.
• Given the appellant raised self-defence, it was proper for the judge to direct the jury on the relevance of the appellant’s conduct, including the failure to call the police.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analysed the judge’s directions on self-defence, emphasizing the importance of clear instructions on the elements of the defence: the appellant’s belief in the necessity of force to repel an ongoing or imminent attack, and the reasonableness of the force used. The judge’s directions included a detailed explanation of these elements and the burden of proof. The court noted the significance of the appellant’s movements shown by CCTV, particularly the 14-minute interval during which the appellant left the scene, changed clothes, and armed himself before returning to attack.

The court acknowledged the expanded passage regarding the appellant’s failure to call the police, which was intended to assist the jury in assessing the reasonableness of the force used. Although the court considered that this passage might have been unnecessary and could have been better contextualised, it found no confusion or misdirection arising from it. The directions on possession of the knives were also found to be correct and distinct from the self-defence issues.

Ultimately, the court was not persuaded that the appellant’s proposed ground of appeal had arguable merit, finding the judge’s directions comprehensive, clear, and legally sound.

Holding and Implications

The court REFUSED the renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction.

The direct effect of this decision is to uphold the appellant’s convictions and sentence. No new legal precedent was established by this ruling. The court affirmed that the trial judge’s directions on self-defence, including the references to the appellant’s failure to call the police, were appropriate and did not render the convictions unsafe.