Meanza, R. v

A loss-of-control defence requires evidence capable of establishing both a qualifying trigger and the objective statutory standard. A grievance is not justifiable merely because the defendant resents lawful restrictions imposed for proper reasons. Mental illness must be disregarded when assessing whether a person of the defendant’s age and sex, with normal tolerance and self-restraint, might have reacted similarly.

When fixing a murder minimum term, dangerousness may be relevant, but undue weight must not be placed on future risk where the Parole Board will assess public protection at the release stage. A psychiatric history may reduce culpability or the weight of aggravating features.

The appellant was convicted at the Central Criminal Court of murdering a care worker at the residential placement where he was required to live following discharge from hospital. He had paranoid schizophrenia and anti-social personality disorder. The jury rejected diminished responsibility.

The trial judge withdrew loss of control from the jury. The appellant renewed his application for leave to appeal against conviction, contending that his fear of recall to hospital and resentment about restrictions on contact with his girlfriend could amount to a qualifying trigger. He also appealed his 24-year minimum term, contending that the sentencing judge gave excessive weight to dangerousness and insufficient weight to his psychiatric history.

The central issues were whether loss of control should have been left to the jury and whether the minimum term was manifestly excessive.

1. The renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction was refused. The withdrawal of loss of control from the jury was correct. The combined effect of section 54(1)(b) and section 55(4) of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 required an arguable case that the circumstances caused a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged. Lawfully imposed hospital and restriction orders, and lawful restrictions on the appellant’s relationship, could not provide such a grievance. The care worker was duty bound to report the appellant’s breach of the residence rules.
2. The separate objective condition in section 54(1)(c) was also incapable of satisfaction. The appellant’s mental illness was excluded from the assessment. A person of his age and sex with normal tolerance and self-restraint could not have reacted in the same or a similar way to those circumstances.
3. The appeal against sentence was allowed. The sentencing judge was entitled to find the appellant dangerous, but future dangerousness would fall for assessment by the Parole Board on the evidence available when release was considered. The judge gave that factor excessive weight and insufficient weight to the appellant’s psychiatric history, which reduced overall culpability or the force of aggravating factors.
4. The 24-year minimum term was manifestly excessive. It was reduced to 21 years, less 217 days spent on remand.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In [2017] EWCA Crim 445, refused the renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction and allowed the sentence appeal by reducing the minimum term.
• Central Criminal Court: Convicted the appellant of murder on 2 March 2016 and imposed life imprisonment with a 24-year minimum term, less time spent on remand. The trial judge had withdrawn loss of control from the jury.