Islam, R v

For the partial defence of loss of control, the trial judge must assess all the evidence and decide whether a properly directed jury could reasonably conclude that the statutory defence might apply. The statutory elements must be considered separately and sequentially.

A frenzied or sustained attack is not a legal requirement. However, a bare assertion that the defendant was panicking or not in control does not constitute sufficient evidence when considered against evidence of purposeful conduct. Where there is no sufficient evidence that the killing resulted from loss of self-control, the defence need not be left to the jury, even if fear of serious violence is relied upon as a possible qualifying trigger.

The applicant was convicted at the Crown Court at Luton of murder after he admitted inflicting a fatal single stab wound. He was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 22 years.

At trial, he relied on self-defence, lack of intent and diminished responsibility. He also sought to rely on the partial defence of loss of control. The trial judge declined to leave that defence to the jury, holding that there was insufficient evidence of a loss of self-control.

A single judge refused leave to appeal against conviction. The applicant renewed the application before the Full Court, contending that the evidence of fear, panic and an asserted lack of control required the issue to be left to the jury.

1. The renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction was refused. The trial judge was correct not to leave loss of control to the jury. There was no arguable basis on which the conviction was unsafe.

2. Under Coroners and Justice Act 2009, section 54, the judge must decide whether sufficient evidence has been adduced on which a properly directed jury could reasonably conclude that the defence might apply. The statutory elements must be considered separately and sequentially. The court applied the approach stated in R v Goodwin [2018] EWCA Crim 2287.

3. The statute does not require evidence of a frenzied attack. A frenzied or sustained assault may sometimes suggest loss of control, but its absence is not determinative. Properly read, the trial judge had treated the single stab wound as a feature which did not suggest loss of control, rather than as imposing an additional legal requirement.

4. On the evidence most favourable to the applicant, he acted purposefully: he disarmed the deceased, picked up the knife, stabbed him, ran away and discarded the knife. Those matters were relevant to his case of self-defence but did not evidence a loss of control. His statements that he panicked, that something controlled his body, and that he was not in control of himself were bare assertions which had to be assessed with the other evidence. They were insufficient to require the issue to be left to the jury.

5. The court doubted whether the evidence also established a qualifying trigger of fear of serious violence under section 55(3), but it was unnecessary to decide that issue. The failure to adduce sufficient evidence of loss of self-control was decisive.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — The Full Court refused the renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction: [2019] EWCA Crim 2419.
• Single judge of the Court of Appeal — Refused the initial application for leave to appeal against conviction.
• Crown Court at Luton — The applicant was convicted of murder on 27 November 2018 and sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 22 years.