Royle, R v

For murder, the jury must be sure that the defendant intended to cause really serious harm. Awareness that such harm could result is insufficient. Where the direction requires the jury to be sure that the defendant acted on the basis that really serious harm would result, or intended that it would result, a further virtual-certainty direction is unnecessary where the defendant’s case is a complete denial rather than a robbery which went wrong.

In fixing a minimum term for murder for gain, the statutory starting point must be adjusted for aggravating and mitigating features, including the victim’s vulnerability, the absence of premeditation, and an intention to cause serious harm rather than death.

The appellant pleaded guilty at Manchester Crown Court to one robbery. He was later convicted of the murder of an elderly woman who died following a bag-snatch assault, and of a separate robbery. He received life imprisonment for murder with a minimum term of 28 years; no separate penalties were imposed for the robberies.

He appealed against conviction on the ground that the jury should have received a virtual-certainty direction on intention for murder. He also appealed against the minimum term as manifestly excessive. The central issues were whether the directions adequately distinguished intention from mere foresight of possible serious harm, and whether the statutory sentencing starting point had been properly adjusted.

1. The appeal against conviction was dismissed. The trial judge directed the jury that knowledge that the assailant could cause really serious harm was insufficient. It had to be sure that he acted on the basis that such harm would result, or intended that it would result. That direction was at least as favourable to the appellant as a virtual-certainty direction derived from Nedrick (1986) 83 Cr.App.R 267 and Woollin [1999] 1 AC 82.

2. The appellant had advanced a complete denial of involvement, not a case that an intended bag-snatch had accidentally escalated. Further elaboration in the Nedrick/Woollin form was therefore unnecessary. The jury’s question was fact-specific. The judge correctly explained that a proved kick or stamp could be taken into account as evidence of intention, but did not itself relieve the jury of the requirement to be sure of an intention to cause really serious harm.

3. The appeal against sentence was allowed. The 30-year starting point for murder for gain under Schedule 21 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003 was not disputed. The victim’s age and vulnerability, and the appellant’s serious record, aggravated the offence. Mitigation included the absence of premeditation and that the appellant intended really serious harm rather than death.

4. Although the murder was grave, the robbery triggered the violence and the requisite intention was formed within seconds. The interests of justice were served by reducing the minimum term from 28 years to 25 years.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): by [2013] EWCA Crim 1461, dismissed the appeal against conviction and allowed the appeal against sentence to the extent of reducing the minimum term to 25 years.
• Crown Court sitting at Manchester: the appellant pleaded guilty to one robbery on 6 June 2012. On 2 August 2012, he was convicted of murder and a further robbery, and sentenced to life imprisonment with a 28-year minimum term.