Wilson, R. v

A jury should be directed to the principal limitations of hearsay evidence: the absence of demeanour evidence, the absence of an oath, and the inability to test the statement by cross-examination. The necessary strength of the warning depends on the facts and the importance of the hearsay in the trial as a whole. An unconventional or imperfect direction will not render a conviction unsafe unless it amounts to a material misdirection in context.

In fixing a minimum term for murder, a proven and trial-tested background of domestic abuse may be treated as a distinct aggravating circumstance. It need not itself have been charged as a separate offence.

The applicant was convicted of murder at the Crown Court at Wood Green after the fatal stabbing of his partner. He was sentenced to life imprisonment, with a minimum term of 20 years under section 269(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.

After the single judge refused permission, the applicant renewed applications for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence. His conviction grounds concerned directions on hearsay evidence of earlier domestic abuse, psychiatric evidence on suicide, and the prosecution's use of material from Angela Burgess during cross-examination. His sentence ground challenged the use of a history of domestic violence as an aggravating feature. The central questions were whether any asserted evidential or summing-up error made the conviction unsafe, and whether the minimum term was manifestly excessive.

1. The renewed applications for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence were dismissed. The court also stated that an appellant wishing, after the single judge's decision, to advance new or substantially redrafted grounds must apply to vary the grounds. A renewed hearing is not a first opportunity to formulate an appeal: R v James [2018] EWCA Crim 285.

2. The hearsay direction was unconventional. A proper direction should identify the three principal limitations of hearsay evidence: the jury cannot observe the maker's demeanour, the statement was not made on oath, and it cannot be tested in cross-examination. The force of the warning depends on the evidence's significance in the case. Although the direction should have been better tailored, it did not materially affect the safety of the verdict. The hearsay formed part of mutually relevant background evidence, the defence had contributed to the direction, and a fuller warning might also have caused the jury to disregard hearsay evidence favourable to the defence.

3. The complaints about the psychiatric evidence and the reference to Angela Burgess's statement did not undermine the conviction. Dr Joseph may have gone beyond the proper limits of expert evidence, and the judge should not later have referred to Ms Burgess's statement. However, the jury had been properly directed on expert evidence; trial counsel had not sought an exclusionary direction; and the Burgess point was not relied on as a lie. Considered individually and cumulatively, the matters did not make the verdict unsafe.

4. On sentence, the judge was entitled to treat the history of domestic abuse as a distinct aggravating feature. The abuse was extensively evidenced, accepted in part by the defence, and traversed at trial. It was not necessary for that background to have been separately charged or to have resulted in separate convictions. The use of a kitchen knife and the earlier serious assault on the day of the murder were further aggravating features. There was no proper basis for contending that the 20-year minimum term was manifestly excessive.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Renewed applications for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence dismissed.
• Single judge: On 31 May 2017, refused leave to appeal against conviction and sentence.
• Crown Court at Wood Green: On 24 January 2017, the applicant was convicted of murder. On 25 January 2017, he received life imprisonment with a 20-year minimum term, less time spent on remand.