Nawaz, R v

A R v Turnbull (1977) QB 224 direction is required only where identification evidence is genuinely disputed. Admission that the defendant was present does not always remove an identification issue. However, where both accounts identify the defendant as the person in the confrontation and the dispute concerns what he did during it, the issue is one of conduct rather than identification. A Turnbull direction would then be artificial and potentially confusing.

On sentence, the appellate question is whether the sentence is manifestly excessive. A sentence is not excessive merely because the appellate court might have approached the balance of aggravation and mitigation differently.

The appellant was convicted by a jury in the Crown Court at Kingston upon Hull of wounding with intent, contrary to section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. He received ten years’ detention in a young offender institution.

The prosecution alleged that, during a confrontation at a party, the appellant stabbed Nicholson. The appellant accepted that he had been involved in the confrontation but denied possessing a knife or inflicting the wound. His case was that someone else stabbed Nicholson shortly afterwards.

A single judge refused an extension of time to seek leave to appeal against conviction. The appellant renewed that application and, with leave, appealed his sentence. The central issues were whether the jury should have received a Turnbull direction and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive.

1. The renewed applications concerning conviction were refused, and the appeal against sentence was dismissed.

2. The R v Turnbull (1977) QB 224 guidelines govern cases involving disputed identification evidence. Although an identification issue can arise despite an admission of presence, the true issues at trial were decisive. Here, both Nicholson and the appellant identified the appellant as the person involved in their confrontation. Their disagreement concerned whether the appellant stabbed Nicholson during that confrontation. The defence case necessarily alleged a later, separate incident involving another assailant. The issue was therefore what the correctly identified appellant did, not identification.

3. A Turnbull direction would have been inappropriate and confusing. It would have artificially required the jury to consider matters such as lighting and supporting identification evidence when the appellant accepted that he was the person whom Nicholson encountered. There was no arguable conviction ground, so no purpose would be served by extending time to pursue the appeal.

4. The sentencing judge was entitled to classify the offence as Category 1. The injury was serious in the context of the offence, even if towards the lower end of that range. The judge was also entitled to find that any punch or headbutt occurred after the stabbing, so there was no relevant prior provocation. Attending the party armed with a knife and later disposing of it were aggravating features.

5. The court recognised the appellant’s age, lack of convictions, strong character evidence, family circumstances and the hardship of first custody. Those matters justified a reduction from the adult starting point. Nevertheless, the court could not say that ten years’ detention was manifestly excessive.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) In [2020] EWCA Crim 893, the court refused the renewed applications for an extension of time and leave to appeal against conviction, and dismissed the sentence appeal.

• Single judge Refused the application for an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal against conviction.

• Crown Court at Kingston upon Hull The jury convicted the appellant of wounding with intent. His Honour Judge Bury imposed ten years’ detention in a young offender institution.