Medouni & Anor v R.

When answering a jury question about intention in a murder case, the judge should direct the jury to decide intention at the time of the fatal act. The jury may consider all the surrounding evidence before, during and after that act, including omissions, participation in a joint criminal purpose and the defendant’s account. A supplementary answer need not repeat every item of evidence where the jury has received a full and accurate summing-up.

For murder sentencing, systematic ill-treatment, torture, serious physical suffering and desecration of the body may justify the 30-year starting point under Criminal Justice Act 2003, Schedule 21. The Court of Appeal will not interfere unless the sentence is wrong in principle or manifestly excessive.

At the Central Criminal Court, both appellants were convicted of the murder of Sophie Lionnet and were sentenced to life imprisonment with minimum terms of 30 years. They had also pleaded guilty to perverting the course of public justice by their roles in attempting to burn her body.

Medouni appealed his murder conviction. During deliberations, the jury had asked whether his failure to intervene, coupled with knowledge of Kouider’s capacity to cause serious harm, could amount to intention. Both appellants appealed their minimum terms. They contended that the judge should not have adopted the 30-year starting point under Schedule 21 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003.

1. Both the conviction appeal and the sentence appeals were dismissed. The answer to the jury’s question was accurate, balanced and sufficient. The judge correctly identified the critical issue as Medouni’s intention when a fatal act of violence was done which caused or significantly contributed to death.

2. The jury were properly directed to infer intention, if appropriate, from all the circumstances surrounding the deliberate act, before, during and after it. That included Medouni’s own conduct, conduct by Kouider in which he participated pursuant to a common criminal purpose, his prior omissions, and his account of events. The judge also made clear that prior events were evidence relevant to intention at the critical time, rather than intention at that earlier time itself.

3. A further recital of Medouni’s explanations for not obtaining medical help or sending the victim home was unnecessary. The jury had received a detailed summing-up and had not sought a further review of the evidence. Any such reminder would also have required the countervailing prosecution case. The Court would not speculate about the meaning of the jury note or infer anything from the fact that the verdict was by a majority.

4. The conviction was safe. The evidence of Medouni’s participation in the interrogations, knowledge of grave injuries and failure to protect the victim, followed by concealment and burning of the body, made the prosecution case strong and compelling.

5. The sentencing judge was entitled, if not driven, to find that the systematic ill-treatment and torture leading to death brought the murders within the 30-year starting point in paragraph 5 of Schedule 21 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The victim’s confinement, physical and mental suffering, waterboarding, injuries, vulnerability and the subsequent destruction of her body were substantial aggravating features. The judge had carefully considered Kouider’s mental illness and Medouni’s asserted influence by her. The minimum terms were neither wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): By [2019] EWCA Crim 1283, dismissed Medouni’s appeal against conviction and both appellants’ appeals against their murder minimum terms.

• Central Criminal Court: On 24 May 2018, following trial before HHJ Hilliard QC and a jury, both appellants were convicted of murder. On 26 June 2018, each received life imprisonment with a 30-year minimum term.