R v Shane James Henderson Myles

Under section 54 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, the partial defence of loss of control should be left to the jury only where sufficient evidence supports each statutory element. The elements are considered sequentially, so failure at an earlier stage makes further consideration unnecessary. Loss of control must be assessed against the whole evidence, including prior conduct, subsequent conduct and purposeful decisions during the incident. On appeal, sufficiency of evidence is a question of whether the ruling was wrong, not discretion, although proper regard must be given to the trial judge’s having heard all the evidence. Voluntary intoxication cannot form part of the circumstances relevant to the normal tolerance and self-restraint limb.

The appellant was convicted at the Crown Court at Maidstone of murdering a man who had been fatally beaten in a flat. His co-accused pleaded guilty during the trial. The appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 22 years. He appealed, arguing that the evidence was sufficient to leave the statutory partial defence of loss of control to the jury. The central issues were whether there was evidence of loss of self-control, a qualifying trigger, and a possible reaction by a person with a normal degree of tolerance and self-restraint.

The appeal was dismissed. The trial judge’s ruling refusing to leave the defence of loss of control to the jury was upheld.

1. The court identified the three matters required by section 54 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009: the defendant’s acts must result from loss of self-control; there must be a qualifying trigger; and a person of the defendant’s sex and age with a normal degree of tolerance and self-restraint might have reacted similarly. The matters are considered sequentially. If the first limb is unsupported, the defence fails without consideration of the others.
2. Whether there was sufficient evidence was a question of whether the judge’s finding was wrong, not an exercise of discretion. The appellate court nevertheless had to give proper regard to the trial judge’s having heard the evidence in its entirety.
3. The appellant’s statement that he had lost control had to be assessed in context. He had not raised the issue in interview or in his defence statement. He had previously heard the alleged trigger without reacting, stole the deceased’s bank card after the attack, and behaved in a manner on CCTV consistent with deliberate participation. His deliberate decision to change from stamping to kicking and then stop was inconsistent with loss of self-control. A reasonable jury could not have concluded otherwise.
4. In deference to the arguments, the court considered the remaining limbs. There was no sufficient evidence of a qualifying trigger. The appellant had only thought that something might have happened to his son, had continued associating with the deceased, and had never regarded him as someone who had sexually abused a child.
5. The third limb also could not be satisfied. Stamping on a man’s head was an extreme reaction to the alleged words and speculative concern. Voluntary intoxication could not be included in the relevant circumstances; the standard was that of a sober person with normal tolerance and self-restraint. The judge would therefore have rejected the remaining limbs had it been necessary to decide them.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The appeal against conviction was dismissed: [2023] EWCA Crim 943.
2. Crown Court at Maidstone: The appellant was convicted of murder on 10 August 2022 and sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 22 years, less time spent on remand.