Riddington, R. v

On a renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction, proposed fresh evidence must be assessed for its material effect on the safety of the conviction. Evidence that does not affect the issues the jury had to decide cannot make a conviction arguably unsafe, even if admitted. A murder conviction does not require proof that the defendant brought the weapon to the scene where he accepted later possession, infliction of injuries and an intention to cause really serious harm. On sentence, a judge may make factual findings consistent with the jury’s verdict, including findings of planning, intention to kill and rejection of self-defence. Sentencing remarks are read fairly and as a whole.

The applicant was convicted unanimously of murder at the Central Criminal Court on 17 October 2019. He was acquitted of possessing an offensive weapon, but had pleaded guilty to two prohibited-weapons counts. He received a life sentence with a minimum term of 19 years, subject to specified deductions.

He renewed applications for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence. The conviction grounds concerned jury directions on the route to verdict and loss of control, proposed fresh evidence from a trial witness, and expert evidence concerning that witness’s ability to recall events. The sentence grounds challenged the judge’s factual findings, their consistency with the acquittal, the treatment of mitigation, and the length of the minimum term.

The Court, in a judgment delivered by Singh LJ, refused both renewed applications for leave.

1. Conviction. The route to verdict was not illogical. The jury could acquit on the weapon-possession count while convicting of murder because the issues under the counts did not necessarily overlap. The applicant accepted that he eventually possessed the knife, inflicted at least some injuries and intended to cause really serious harm. The central questions were therefore self-defence and loss of control.
2. The proposed cumulative loss-of-control argument was not reasonably arguable because it conflicted with the applicant’s own evidence that any loss of control occurred suddenly and had not been raised before the trial judge. The phrase considered desire for revenge used ordinary English words and required no further explanation.
3. The application to adduce fresh evidence under section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 could not affect the safety of the conviction, even if the evidence were admitted. The proposed changes to the witness’s account did not alter the issues requiring determination. The evidence was not crucial when considered alongside the pathology evidence, the applicant’s admissions and his rejected account of self-defence. The expert evidence instead indicated that the witness could recall the important parts of the incident.
4. The Court criticised the practice of formulating a further ground orally at the hearing, but considered its substance. It found no basis for doubting the conviction.
5. Sentence. The sentencing judge remained faithful to the jury’s acquittal. He was not required to determine who brought the knife to the gym. The use of the 15-year starting point under paragraph 6 of Schedule 21 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003, rather than the 25-year starting point, reflected that approach. The judge was entitled to find planning, intention to kill, and absence of self-defence or loss of control from the trial evidence.
6. The sentencing remarks, read fairly and as a whole, showed that the judge had considered the absence of premeditation as mitigation. The minimum term was neither wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive.

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

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Renewed applications for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence refused, [2021] EWCA Crim 601.
2. Single judge: Leave to appeal against conviction was refused on the papers; the application was renewed.
3. Central Criminal Court: The applicant was convicted of murder on 17 October 2019 and sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 19 years, subject to deductions. He was acquitted of possessing an offensive weapon and had pleaded guilty to two prohibited-weapons counts.