REGINA v DIANA CRISTEA

Directions on murder must require the jury to be sure that a secondary party intended that the victim should suffer really serious harm. A reference to the party knowing something of a drug’s potential effects does not dilute that requirement when read in the context of clear written directions, a route to verdict, and repeated directions on the necessary intent.

A summing up is fair if it identifies the defence case and maintains balance. The judge need not rehearse every item of evidence or repeat counsel’s forensic submissions. In sentencing a person under 18 for murder, the 12-year starting point remains a starting point. Substantial aggravating features may justify an upward adjustment, while youth, vulnerability and a dominant co-offender remain material mitigation.

The applicant, who was 17 at the time, was convicted by a jury in the Crown Court at Croydon of murder and of administering a noxious substance contrary to section 23 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. Her co-defendant had used scopolamine to incapacitate two men whom he met through Grindr, stealing property on both occasions. One victim died.

The prosecution alleged that the applicant knowingly assisted the plan, including by research, contact during the incidents, arranging transport, using stolen bank cards and selling stolen goods. She denied advance knowledge of either the drug or the intended thefts. She received detention at Her Majesty’s Pleasure with a 16-year minimum term for murder.

She renewed applications for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence. The issues were whether the summing up misdirected or unfairly disadvantaged her, and whether the minimum term was manifestly excessive.

1. The renewed applications for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence were dismissed.

2. There was no misdirection on intent for murder. The judge’s written legal directions and route to verdict correctly required the jury to be sure that the applicant intended Mr Murphy to suffer really serious harm. In the factual summing up, the disputed reference to her knowing something of scopolamine’s potential effect immediately followed the question whether she shared Osei’s intent to cause really serious harm. It was also followed by a direction to consider manslaughter if that intent was not proved. Read as a whole, the passage could not have allowed conviction upon knowledge of lesser effects such as drowsiness, temporary incapacity or dizziness.

3. The summing up was fair and balanced. Where an accused neither answered questions nor gave evidence, the evidential summing up will naturally focus on the prosecution evidence. The judge was required to identify the defence case and avoid conveying a preference for the prosecution, not to identify every inculpatory and exculpatory feature or repeat all advocacy. He repeatedly reminded the jury of Osei’s evidence that the applicant did not know of the scopolamine, which was the essence of her defence. None of the specific complaints created doubt about the safety of the convictions.

4. The judge did not treat the applicant’s proximity to her 18th birthday as an aggravating factor. He correctly adopted the 12-year starting point applicable because she was under 18, and referred to her age when explaining relative culpability and the contrast with an adult sentence.

5. The applicant’s traumatic childhood, vulnerability, mental-health difficulties and susceptibility to Osei’s influence were substantial mitigation. They did not make the 16-year minimum term manifestly excessive. The murder was for gain; the applicant was found to have been an active participant in a carefully planned operation; and the earlier drugging and theft from AB was a serious aggravating feature. Her role included research, handling scopolamine, arranging transport and disposing of stolen property.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Renewed applications for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence dismissed: [2021] EWCA Crim 1597.
• Crown Court at Croydon: The applicant was convicted of murder and administering a noxious substance, and received detention at Her Majesty’s Pleasure with a 16-year minimum term for murder and a concurrent 30-month term for the other offence.