Morgan, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

The Defendant, aged 48 at the time of the appeal, was tried in the Crown Court at The City before Judge Kearl and a jury and was convicted of murder and two counts of assault occasioning actual bodily harm on 24 December 2024. He was sentenced on 4 December to imprisonment for life with a minimum term set at 21 years less time on remand, with concurrent terms for the other counts. The Defendant renewed applications for permission to appeal against both conviction and sentence following refusal by a single judge.

The prosecution case arose from events by a riverside in The City on 24 April 2024. Witness A encountered the Defendant and the Victim on the riverbank late at night and saw the Victim lying close to the water. Shortly thereafter Witness B arrived and observed the Defendant in the water holding the Victim with her head submerged. Emergency services were called and the Victim was taken to hospital but died; post‑mortem evidence indicated prolonged cardiac arrest and multiple injuries, including a fractured femur of uncertain timing and a range of other fractures and bruising.

The evidence at trial included contemporaneous CCTV, witness accounts (including Witnesses A and B), medical and pathological evidence, and extensive bad character evidence of the Defendant's prior violent offending against former partners (including testimony from Witness C and evidence of prior breaches of domestic violence protection orders). The Defendant did not give evidence; he had provided a prepared statement to police denying murder and offering varying accounts (including references to suicide and accident). The trial judge refused a submission of no case to answer; the Defendant was convicted and subsequently sentenced. The Defendant then renewed applications for permission to appeal against conviction and sentence, which are the subject of this opinion in the Court of Appeal (panel: Judge Coulson, Judge Bennethan and Judge Blair sitting as a judge of the CACD).

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the trial judge was wrong to refuse the submission of no case to answer (i.e. whether there was sufficient evidence on which a reasonable jury properly directed could convict the Defendant).
2. Whether the minimum term fixed on sentence (21 years less time served) was manifestly excessive, including whether aggravating features were double‑counted.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• There was no reliable evidence as to how the Victim entered the water; neither witness testimony nor pathology established that the Defendant put the Victim into the river.
• The judge overstated or misinterpreted Witness B's evidence; aspects of that witness's account were, it was said, potentially exculpatory.
• The 999 call and other contemporaneous material suggested the Defendant asked for emergency services to be contacted.
• The Defendant's intoxication undermined the reliability and probative value of his contemporaneous statements, including references to suicide.
• A properly directed jury could only convict wholly or mainly on bad character evidence, which would be impermissible.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court considered the applicable law on no case submissions (Galbraith and subsequent authorities including R v Bokkum, R v Jabber, R v Goring and R v Goddard) and accepted that the correct test was whether a reasonable jury, properly directed, could on one possible view of the evidence be entitled to convict.

Applying that test to the evidence, the court concluded: (1) there was direct evidence (primarily Witness B) that the Defendant was holding the Victim with her head submerged in the water, an act that caused death; although there was a short interval between the Victim entering the water and Witness B's observation, this did not make the evidence insufficient as a matter of law; (2) even without that strand, the cumulative circumstantial evidence permitted an inference of guilt — specifically, Witness A's account that the Defendant appeared to pull the Victim further into the water while Witness B sought to rescue her; the Defendant's initial attempt to prevent police being notified; medical evidence indicating the fractured femur was unlikely to be accidental and the multiplicity of injuries; the Defendant's changing and demonstrably false accounts (including a suicide narrative contradicted by CCTV); and the volume of bad character evidence showing a pattern of prior violence; (3) the assessment of credibility and whether alternative explanations were realistic was for the jury, not for the judge on a no case application; (4) on sentence, the judge correctly started from the statutory starting point (15 years under paragraph 5 of schedule 21 of the Sentencing Act 2020), identified numerous aggravating factors (including prior offending, breaches of court orders, domestic context, the Victim's vulnerability, intoxication and the medical evidence indicative of prolonged submersion and intent), treated lack of premeditation as neutral and the Defendant's addictions as limited mitigation, and reasonably exercised discretion to uplift the minimum term to 21 years; (5) allegations of double counting were rejected: counts 2 and 3 and the Defendant's previous history were distinct aggravating features.

Holding and Implications

The Court refused the renewed applications for permission to appeal against conviction and against sentence.

Direct effect: the Defendant's convictions and life sentence with a minimum term of 21 years less time served remain in force. The court did not purport to establish new legal principle; it applied established authority on no case submissions and sentencing and concluded that the trial judge's and single judge's decisions were correct in law and not manifestly excessive on sentence.