Goodwin, R v

A trial judge must leave the partial defence of loss of control to the jury only where there is sufficient evidence on each statutory component. The judge must assess the whole of the evidence rigorously, including its quality and weight, while recognising that a jury may accept evidence favourable to the defendant.

Self-defence and loss of control are distinct. A case for self-defence does not itself establish a qualifying fear of serious violence or otherwise require loss of control to be left. The statutory components must be considered separately. Where there is no sufficient evidence that a person with normal tolerance and self-restraint might have reacted similarly, the partial defence does not arise.

The appellant was convicted of murder by a unanimous jury at Maidstone Crown Court. His case at trial was self-defence. He said that the deceased had attacked him with a hammer and that he had responded in fear for his life.

Trial counsel also asked the judge to leave loss of control under the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 as an alternative partial defence. The judge declined, although he considered that the forensic evidence could raise loss of self-control. He found insufficient evidence of a qualifying trigger and, alternatively, of the required objective reaction.

With leave of the single judge, the appellant challenged the safety of his murder conviction. The central issue was whether the evidence required the judge to leave loss of control to the jury.

1. Appeal dismissed. The judge reached the correct overall conclusion in declining to leave loss of control to the jury. The murder conviction was safe.

2. Under sections 54(5) and 54(6) of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, the trial judge must make a common-sense but rigorous evaluation of all the evidence. The judge must consider its quality and weight and assess the three statutory components separately and sequentially. Some evidence is insufficient. The question is whether a properly directed jury could reasonably conclude that the defence might apply.

3. The appellate court gives due weight to the trial judge’s evaluation, who has heard the evidence and has the feel of the case. The evaluation is nevertheless a right-or-wrong question, rather than a discretionary decision reviewable only for unreasonableness.

4. Self-defence and loss of control are legally distinct. Self-defence may arise from a genuine belief in threatened violence. The fear trigger in section 55(3) requires fear of serious violence. Accordingly, a self-defence case does not automatically provide a sufficient evidential basis for loss of control.

5. The court had reservations about the judge’s conclusions on actual loss of control and on the qualifying trigger. It did not decide those matters. The third component was determinative. On the evidence, the appellant repeatedly struck a substantially older man who was on the ground and unable meaningfully to resist, over a period exceeding five minutes. There was no sufficient evidence that a person with normal tolerance and self-restraint, in the appellant’s circumstances, might have reacted similarly. The judge was therefore correct not to leave the partial defence.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Dismissed the appeal against conviction and held the conviction safe: [2018] EWCA Crim 2287.

2. Crown Court at Maidstone: The appellant was convicted of murder by a unanimous jury and sentenced to life imprisonment, with a minimum term of 12 years and 191 days.