Murphy & Ors, R. v (Rev 1)

Expert psychological evidence may assist a jury only where it has a proper medical basis and explains how a recognised mental disorder affects a defendant’s presentation. It must not displace the jury’s exclusive assessment of credibility. A low IQ score and mental-age estimate, without evidence of their effect, do not meet that test.

After a jury retires, it should receive no new evidence. Written assistance may be appropriate in a complex case, but it must fairly answer the jury’s request and must not become a written rehearsal of the prosecution case. An error in providing such material will not render a conviction unsafe unless it causes unfair prejudice.

Six defendants challenged convictions, sentences, or both following proceedings in the Crown Court at Lincoln concerning conspiracies to supply substantial quantities of high-purity Class A drugs from Sheffield and Essex into Lincolnshire.

Heidi Murphy, Darren Palmer and Paul Wilkinson challenged conviction rulings. The issues were whether agreed facts drawn from a psychologist’s report on Heidi Murphy’s low IQ should have been admitted, and whether an eight-page prosecution document should have been given to the jury after retirement. Heidi Murphy also appealed sentence. The remaining applicants sought permission to challenge their sentences.

1. Disposition. The court dismissed the conviction appeals of Heidi Murphy, Palmer and Wilkinson. It allowed Heidi Murphy’s sentence appeal, quashed her concurrent 12-year terms, and substituted concurrent terms of 10 years. The remaining sentence applications, and Singh’s application for an extension of time, were refused.
2. Applying R v Mulindwa [2017] 4 WLR 157, expert medical evidence may in principle help a jury understand the presentation of a defendant with a recognised mental disorder. It is inadmissible where it merely intrudes on the jury’s assessment of credibility. The proposed agreed facts stated an IQ score, level of functioning and estimated mental age, but did not explain how any condition affected Heidi Murphy’s presentation or her capacity to play the alleged role. They could not assist the jury to assess whether her evidence was true. The judge was therefore right to exclude them.
3. Once a jury has retired, it should receive no further evidence, although it may be directed to evidence already heard: R v Davis 62 Cr App R 194. The eight-page document added no new evidence. However, despite Part 26 of the Criminal Practice Direction, it went substantially beyond the focused assistance requested. It became a written reminder of the prosecution case and should not have been supplied in that form. The error did not make any conviction unsafe because the document concerned contacts not disputed by the defence, and the evidence against each defendant was very strong.
4. In sentencing Heidi Murphy, the judge was entitled to reflect the additional criminality of participation in two conspiracies. He did not, however, sufficiently assess the combined effect of her intellectual limitations, compliant character and the influence exerted by her brother. A greater reduction was required.
5. The court found no arguable excess or unfair disparity in the other challenged sentences. It upheld the assessments of culpability, harm, aggravation and mitigation as lying within the sentencing judge’s proper discretion.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In this judgment, [2021] EWCA Crim 190, dismissed the conviction appeals, allowed Heidi Murphy’s sentence appeal, and refused the remaining sentence applications.
• Crown Court at Lincoln: Following a trial and guilty pleas, HHJ Pini QC sentenced the defendants on 30 and 31 January 2020 for Class A drug-supply conspiracies and associated offending.