Venclovas, R v

Suppression of Terrorism Act 1978, section 4 does not create a separate statutory offence of murder. It extends the territorial reach of the existing common-law offence for acts committed in a convention country, while leaving the ordinary domestic jurisdiction intact.

Accordingly, where the evidence permits a finding that a victim was killed either in England and Wales or during travel through convention countries, the jury need not identify the particular country in which the fatal act occurred. The statutory consent requirement is the safeguard governing use of the extended jurisdiction.

The applicant was convicted at the Central Criminal Court of murder and kidnapping arising from the abduction and death of his former wife. He received life imprisonment with a minimum term of 18 years and 292 days.

The prosecution evidence placed the applicant and his vehicle near the abduction, traced the vehicle’s subsequent journey through Europe, and linked it to the location in Poland where the victim’s body was found. The precise place of the fatal strangulation could not be established.

On a renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction, the principal issue was whether section 4 of the Suppression of Terrorism Act 1978 created a separate offence requiring the jury to be sure that the murder occurred outside the United Kingdom. Further grounds challenged sat-nav evidence and the admission of previous domestic violence evidence.

1. The renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction was refused. No ground disclosed an arguable basis for impugning either conviction.
2. Section 4 of the Suppression of Terrorism Act 1978 did not create a new statutory offence of murder or replace the ordinary common-law jurisdiction. Its effect was to enlarge the territorial reach of common-law murder and manslaughter where the relevant act was committed in a convention country. The court treated that construction as consistent with R v Bow Street Magistrate, ex parte Pinochet (No 3) [2000] 1 AC 147.
3. The extended jurisdiction could therefore be used where the killing might have occurred in England and Wales or in a convention country through which the vehicle travelled. The trial judge correctly directed that the precise country of the murder was immaterial. The requirement for statutory consent provided the safeguard against inappropriate use of the extended jurisdiction.
4. The sat-nav evidence was properly admitted. The trial judge had found its seizure in Lithuania lawful. In any event, there was no bad faith; an equivalent seizure would not have breached section 19(3) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, and there was no basis to exclude the evidence under section 78. The court endorsed that approach.
5. The previous episodes of domestic violence, threatening conduct and the alleged preparatory journey were properly admitted under section 101(1)(c) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. They formed a relevant continuum of violent, aggressive and controlling behaviour, supported by cogent evidence. The trial judge’s assessment was robust and legally correct.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The court refused the renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction and upheld the trial judge’s rulings.
• Central Criminal Court: On 12 November 2012, Fulford J convicted the applicant of murder and kidnapping and imposed life imprisonment with a minimum term of 18 years and 292 days.