Cooper, R. v

Evidence of drug use may be admissible even where expert evidence excludes any direct pharmacological effect at the time of the alleged offence. It may be relevant to credibility and to the accused’s state of mind when read with contemporaneous messages and a false account to police. Clear directions may confine the evidence to those legitimate purposes and prevent unfair prejudice.

Private messages expressing an intention to react aggressively to a relationship breakdown may be capable of bearing on state of mind and credibility. Their weight, context and remoteness are matters for the jury. A sentence within applicable guidance will not be disturbed unless it is manifestly excessive.

The appellant was convicted at the Crown Court at Winchester of manslaughter after Gary Stacey died from a head injury sustained when he fell following a punch. The appellant maintained that he had acted in lawful self-defence.

On appeal, he challenged the admission of evidence that he had used cocaine and of earlier text messages concerning aggression after a relationship breakdown. He contended that the resulting prejudice made the conviction unsafe. He also renewed his application for leave to appeal a six-year sentence.

Decision

1. The court dismissed the appeal against conviction and refused renewed leave to appeal against sentence.

2. The final toxicological evidence established that the appellant’s cocaine use could not have had a direct stimulant or comedown effect at the time of the fatal blow. That did not make the evidence irrelevant. Read with his contemporaneous messages and his false denial in interview, it was capable of bearing on his credibility and on the state of mind in which he approached events that evening. The judge’s directions made clear that drug use could not be treated as affecting his conduct at the critical moment. They sufficiently confined any prejudice.

3. The earlier messages were capable of showing an intention to react violently if his relationship ended. The jury could consider them when assessing his credibility and state of mind. Their context, the interval before the offence, and evidence capable of reducing their weight were matters for the jury. The judge’s careful warning prevented the jury from treating the messages as proof that the appellant had made an unprovoked attack.

4. The court regarded the treatment of analogous evidential questions in R v Playdell [2005] EWCA Crim 1447 and R v Ashworth [2012] EWCA Crim 1064 as supportive of that conclusion.

5. On sentence, the judge was entitled to find that more than one blow had been struck and to take account of other aggressive conduct, lies, and the appellant’s departure after the victim fell. There was no requirement to address every significant item of evidence in sentencing remarks. The judge correctly applied the guidance in Attorney General’s Reference No 16 of 2014 (R v Lewis Gill) [2014] EWCA Crim 956. The six-year sentence was not manifestly excessive.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): By [2018] EWCA Crim 1454, dismissed the appeal against conviction and refused renewed leave to appeal against sentence.
• Crown Court at Winchester: On 12 April 2017, following trial before Warby J and a jury, convicted the appellant of manslaughter by a majority of 11 to 1 and imposed six years’ imprisonment. No citation was stated for that decision.