R v George Henry Knights

For the partial defence of loss of control to be left to a jury, the evidence must be sufficient to raise the issue. A violent or uncontrolled encounter does not, without more, establish loss of self-control. An appellate court gives due weight to the trial judge’s assessment and will not readily interfere. In sentencing a murder found to have been committed for gain, a 30-year starting point may be used, but the sentence must be calibrated to the particular aggravating and mitigating features. A 23-year minimum term was not manifestly excessive on the facts found.

Following his conviction for murder after a trial at Maidstone, the applicant renewed applications for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence. He also sought an extension of time for the conviction appeal. He argued that loss of control should have been left to the jury, despite his case being based on self-defence. He challenged the sentencing judge’s finding that the murder was committed for gain, the resulting 30-year starting point, and the 23-year minimum term. The central issues were whether the evidence raised loss of control and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive.

1. Conviction. The renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction, and the application for an extension of time, were refused.
2. Loss of control. The issue had to be left to the jury only if there was sufficient evidence to raise it. That threshold was distinct from the existence of some evidence or from the fact that the situation was uncontrolled. The court applied the approach in R v Goodwin [2018] 4 WLR 165, including the requirement to give due weight to the trial judge’s evaluation of the evidence.
3. The applicant’s own account described a series of deliberate responses: attempting to calm the deceased, arming himself as a precaution, using the knife only after it had been used against him, and delivering a single blow. His case was consistently one of self-defence and lack of intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm. Although the trial judge had to consider loss of control even though it was not advanced by the defence, the evidence did not realistically indicate a loss of self-control. The trial judge was therefore right not to give the direction.
4. Sentence. The renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence was also refused. The sentencing judge was entitled to conclude that the murder was committed for gain, whether for money or for the cocaine brought by the deceased, and to adopt a 30-year starting point. The guidance in R v Cole [2008] EWCA Crim 1060 required a non-rigid assessment of seriousness by reference to the particular facts. The judge considered the aggravating and mitigating features and made a substantial adjustment, particularly for age and immaturity. A minimum term of 23 years was not manifestly excessive.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — The renewed applications for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence, and the application to extend time for the conviction appeal, were refused: [2023] EWCA Crim 895.
• Single judge of the Court of Appeal — Leave to appeal against conviction and sentence was refused. The judge concluded that the evidence did not realistically indicate loss of control and that the sentence was not manifestly excessive.
• Crown Court at Maidstone — Following a jury conviction for murder on 9 June 2021, the sentencing judge imposed life imprisonment with a 23-year minimum term, adopting a 30-year starting point.