Dawson & Anor, R. v (Rev 2)

A trial judge should leave the partial defence of loss of control to the jury only where the evidence, assessed rigorously as a whole, could reasonably support each statutory requirement. A brutal or prolonged attack, including one described as frenzied, does not by itself establish a loss of self-control. The surrounding evidence may instead demonstrate a calculated attack motivated by revenge.

For a qualifying trigger based on conduct by the deceased, the circumstances must be extremely grave and cause a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged. Cumulative irritation and low-level wrongdoing will not ordinarily meet that threshold. In fixing a murder minimum term, provocation under Sentencing Act 2020, Schedule 21, paragraph 10(d), has its ordinary meaning and may include prolonged stress without amounting to loss of control.

Carol Dawson and her son, Scott Dawson, were unanimously convicted at Sheffield Crown Court of the murder of Gary Dean and received mandatory life sentences. Their respective minimum terms were 26 and 31 years.

The prosecution case was circumstantial. It alleged a planned and vengeful attack following prolonged hostility towards the deceased. Scott Dawson sought leave to appeal conviction solely because the judge had not left loss of control to the jury. Carol Dawson challenged the admission of a balaclava found in a caravan and containing her DNA.

Both applicants also sought leave to appeal their minimum terms. The central issues were whether there was a sufficient evidential basis for loss of control, whether the balaclava evidence was admissible, and whether the minimum terms were arguably excessive.

1. Conviction applications refused. There was no sufficient evidential basis on which a properly directed jury could reasonably conclude that Scott Dawson had acted following a loss of self-control. The court held that the evidence was neutral on that issue or pointed to a deliberate, calculated and vengeful attack. The sustained and gratuitous violence did not alone permit an inference of loss of control.
2. The judge must analyse separately the three requirements in section 54 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 and assess the weight and quality of all the evidence. Applying R v Dawes [2013] EWCA Crim 322, the court held that accumulated irritation, anger and low-level wrongdoing affecting property did not constitute circumstances of an extremely grave character or give rise to a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged. The qualifying-trigger requirement was therefore also unsupported. As those two requirements failed, the third, comparative-reaction requirement did not arise.
3. Carol Dawson’s balaclava ground was rejected. In the setting of a substantial circumstantial case and evidence of planning, the discovery of a balaclava bearing her DNA had probative value. Its admissibility did not depend on proof that she had been seen wearing it. It was for the jury to determine what inference, if any, should be drawn, and the item had not been given undue prominence.
4. Leave to appeal sentence granted. It was reasonably arguable that the 30-year starting point had given undue weight to a non-lethal air rifle; that no weight had been given to potentially mitigating provocation under Schedule 21, paragraph 10(d) of the Sentencing Act 2020; and that the deceased’s vulnerability had been given excessive weight. The court did not determine the sentence appeals. It granted Carol Dawson a limited representation order and directed that the prosecution attend the substantive hearing.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — by [2021] EWCA Crim 40, refused renewed applications for leave to appeal conviction and granted renewed applications for leave to appeal sentence.
• Crown Court at Sheffield — convicted both applicants of murder and imposed mandatory life sentences with minimum terms of 31 years for Scott Dawson and 26 years for Carol Dawson.