Campeanu, R, v

A Sheehan direction on voluntary intoxication and specific intent is required only where there is a proper evidential basis that the defendant did not form the necessary mens rea because of intoxication. Evidence of intoxication alone is insufficient. There must be a causal connection between intoxication and the asserted absence of intent.

In sentencing, an offender’s failure to seek emergency assistance for a victim may aggravate the offence, despite uncertainty about the precise time of death. On appeal, the relevant question is whether the total sentence is manifestly excessive, assessed in accordance with totality.

Following a jury trial at the Central Criminal Court, the applicant was convicted of murder and child destruction after killing his pregnant partner. He received life imprisonment for murder with a minimum term of 26 years, and a concurrent sentence of 14 years for child destruction.

He renewed applications for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence. The conviction challenge concerned the absence of a direction on self-induced intoxication and specific intent. The sentencing challenge concerned the treatment of his delay in seeking emergency help as an aggravating factor and the allowance made for totality.

The Court dismissed the renewed applications for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence.

1. Conviction. A direction on the effect of voluntary intoxication upon specific intent was not required without a proper evidential basis that intoxication prevented the defendant from forming the requisite intent. The applicant gave a detailed account advancing self-defence. He did not give evidence that cocaine use meant that he did not know what he was doing or did not form an intent to kill or cause really serious harm. His later account of paranoia did not establish a causal connection between intoxication and his state of mind when he inflicted the wounds.
2. The trial judge therefore correctly declined to give a Sheehan direction. The judge’s later reminder that no evidence had suggested incapacity to form intent accurately described the evidence. It did not substitute a test of capacity for the jury’s task of deciding whether intent had in fact been proved.
3. Sentence. The judge was entitled to treat the applicant’s failure to obtain medical assistance for more than two hours as aggravating. The uncertainty over the precise moment of death did not answer the point, particularly as prompt assistance might have been obtained.
4. The Court also rejected the totality ground. The question was whether the overall minimum term was manifestly excessive, rather than whether separate components of the sentence were excessive. The sustained attack, the intended killing of the unborn child, and the other aggravating features justified the 26-year minimum term.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)—in R v Campeanu [2020] EWCA Crim 362, dismissed the renewed applications for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence.
• Central Criminal Court—following a jury trial, convicted the applicant of murder and child destruction; imposed life imprisonment for murder with a 26-year minimum term and a concurrent 14-year term for child destruction.