- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Cosier, R. v
Factual and Procedural Background
Reporting restrictions: The Crown Court made an order under s.45 Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 to protect the identity of a child witness; that order remains extant until the witness turns 18. The child witness is not identifiable from this judgment.
On 9 October 2024 the Appellant was convicted of murder following a trial at the Crown Court in The City before Judge James (the Recorder of The City). On 1 November 2024 Judge James sentenced the Appellant to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 25 years, reduced to 24 years and 134 days to account for time on remand.
The Appellant appeals against conviction with leave on one ground: the trial judge's refusal to leave the partial defence of loss of control to the jury. The Appellant also sought renewal of leave to appeal against sentence and a short extension of time; both applications had been refused by a single judge and were renewed before the court.
Facts (as found or relied on in the judgment): On 14 March 2024 the Appellant stabbed and killed the Deceased with a single stab wound to the chest. The Deceased was not previously known to the Appellant. The incident occurred outside Company A (a public house) after a sequence of interactions inside and outside the venue. The Appellant had, during the evening, handled knives in the pub kitchen and outside, and at least one confrontational episode occurred when the Deceased arrived. CCTV and witness evidence described a short scuffle inside, followed by further confrontations outside during which the Deceased fired a BB gun and the fatal stabbing occurred. The Appellant surrendered to police the following day, provided a prepared statement asserting self-defence, and at trial primarily relied on self-defence.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the trial judge was wrong to refuse to leave manslaughter by reason of loss of control to the jury.
- Whether the Appellant should be granted leave to appeal against sentence and, if so, whether the minimum term imposed was manifestly excessive.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The trial judge erred by making factual judgments and drawing inferences that were matters for the jury, rather than taking a balanced view of whether loss of control might properly be left to the jury.
- The judge conflated rational conduct before and after the stabbing with the Appellant's state of mind at the moment of the fatal blow; the CCTV left open the possibility of momentary loss of control.
- The Deceased's use of a BB gun (argued to be a firearm firing metal BBs) was a qualifying trigger causing fear of serious violence; the judge wrongly concluded otherwise.
- There was insufficient evidence of incitement to engage the Deceased such that s.55(6)(a) would apply.
- It was open to a jury to conclude that a person of normal tolerance and restraint might have reacted as the Appellant did.
- On sentence, the judge wrongly found there was no element of defence and that the Appellant had an intention to kill; the judge gave undue weight to aggravating factors and failed to give sufficient weight to mitigation (provocation, partial self-defence, circumstances of confrontation).
Respondent's Arguments
- The Crown submitted the trial judge was correct not to leave loss of control to the jury for the reasons given in the ruling.
- On sentence, the Crown maintained that the judge correctly identified and balanced aggravating and mitigating factors and resisted any reduction of the minimum term.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| R v Goodwin [2018] EWCA Crim 2287, [2018] 4 WLR 165 | Need for a "rigorous evaluation" of the evidence when deciding whether to leave loss of control; factors to consider and that a defendant's failure to assert loss of control is a "powerful point". | The judge applied Goodwin's approach; the court agreed the judge was entitled to treat the Appellant's failure to assert loss of control as a strong point against leaving the defence to the jury. |
| R v Turner [2023] EWCA Crim 1626, [2024] Crim LR 339 | A judge must evaluate the findings that might be open to the jury and must not substitute their own assessment for that exercise. | The court treated Turner as guidance for the proper evaluative exercise and concluded the trial judge remained within proper evaluative bounds in this case. |
| R v Jewell [2014] EWCA Crim 414 | Definition of loss of control as loss of the ability to act in accordance with considered judgment or normal powers of reasoning. | The court applied the definition to assess whether evidence showed a statutory loss of control and concluded it did not. |
| R v Dawson [2021] EWCA Crim 40 | Sustained and gratuitous violence does not, by itself, provide sufficient evidence of loss of control. | The court relied on the principle to hold that the evidence of how the attack was carried out did not amount to sufficient evidence of a loss of control. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court considered whether there was "sufficient evidence" under s.54(6) Coroners and Justice Act 2009 to raise loss of self-control for the jury. It applied the established framework requiring a rigorous evaluation of the evidence (citing R v Goodwin and related authorities).
On the factual assessment the court agreed with the trial judge's key findings:
- The Appellant never asserted a loss of control in his evidence; he described rational, defensive behaviour. That absence was a significant point against the defence.
- The judge permissibly took account of the Appellant's deliberate actions before and after the stabbing (arming himself, going outside, disposing/acquiescing to disposal of the knife, leaving the scene) as evidence pointing away from a sudden loss of control.
- The CCTV did not show a frenzied attack; it showed a short, intense chase with the knife brandished, not evidence of statutory loss of control.
- Although the Deceased fired a BB gun, the court concluded the CCTV and witness evidence did not support an inference that the Appellant was in a state of loss of self-control when he inflicted the fatal blow. The trial judge was entitled to conclude any fear of serious violence was either not established or excluded by s.55(6)(a) due to a pre-arranged confrontation/incitement.
- Accordingly none of the three statutory criteria in s.54(1) were satisfied and loss of control was correctly not left to the jury.
On sentence, the court granted the short extension of time and leave to appeal against sentence. It reviewed the sentencing exercise: the trial judge had started from a 25-year minimum term under Schedule 21, paragraph 4 of the Sentencing Act 2020 and identified multiple aggravating features. The appellate court accepted many of the judge's sentencing findings (including an intention to kill, supported by witness evidence) but considered there was additional mitigation that had not been sufficiently credited (provocation and self-defence falling short of full defence). Balancing the factors, the court concluded the appropriate notional minimum term was around 22 years before credit for remand; after deducting 231 days remand the minimum term became 21 years and 134 days.
Holding and Implications
Conviction Appeal: The court dismissed the appeal against conviction. The trial judge was correct to rule that there was insufficient evidence of loss of control to leave that partial defence to the jury.
Sentence Appeal: The court allowed the appeal in part. It granted a short extension of time and leave to appeal against sentence and reduced the minimum term. The trial judge's minimum term of 25 years was set aside as manifestly excessive; the court imposed a minimum term of 21 years and 134 days after credit for 231 days remand.
Implications: The dismissal of the conviction appeal leaves the murder conviction intact. The partial allowance on sentence results in a reduced minimum term for the Appellant. The court did not indicate that a new legal principle was being established; it applied existing authorities and principles to the facts of this case.
Alert