R v Pengqi Sun

In a case where self-defence is raised, the jury should be directed to decide whether the defendant believed force was necessary to meet an ongoing or imminent attack and whether the force used was reasonable in the circumstances as the defendant believed them to be.

An additional direction which might have been unnecessary, or more clearly contextualised, will not amount to a misdirection if the directions and route to verdict, read as a whole, correctly and clearly state those questions. The fact that a defendant did not seek police assistance may be relevant evidence, but it does not itself remove self-defence from consideration.

The applicant was convicted in the Crown Court at Warwick of murder, wounding with intent and two offences of possessing an article with a blade or point. He received life imprisonment for murder, with a minimum term of 24 years, and concurrent sentences for the remaining offences.

He renewed an application for leave to appeal against conviction after the single judge refused leave. He contended that the trial judge’s supplementary written direction on self-defence, concerning the availability of police assistance, confused the jury and made the convictions unsafe. He also challenged the directions on the possession counts.

The central issue was whether the directions, read with the route to verdict, correctly and comprehensibly explained self-defence and the separate statutory defence to the possession charges.

1. The renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction was refused. The judge’s directions and the route to verdict correctly identified the two questions raised by self-defence: whether the applicant believed force was necessary to defend himself or another against an ongoing or imminent attack, and whether the force used was reasonable in the circumstances as found by the jury.

2. The judge was entitled to assist the jury by relating those questions to the evidence. That evidence included the applicant leaving the scene, returning to his flat, changing clothes, collecting two knives, and returning 14 minutes later. It was for the jury to determine whether he honestly believed an attack was imminent and whether the force used was reasonable.

3. The supplementary direction concerning police assistance did not cause confusion or misstate the law. The passage drawn from R v Jones & Ors [2006] UKHL 16 might have been unnecessary and would preferably have been expressed in the judge’s own words with clearer context. Read with the comprehensive principal directions and concise route to verdict, however, it did not undermine the safety of the convictions.

4. The directions on the possession counts under section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 were also correct. The applicant bore the evidential burden of raising a good reason for possessing the knives. Those issues were distinct from self-defence, and the route to verdict ensured that the jury would have completed its deliberations on murder before considering those counts.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction refused in [2025] EWCA Crim 422.
• Crown Court at Warwick: following trial before His Honour Judge Lockhart KC and a jury, the applicant was convicted of murder, wounding with intent, and two possession offences. He was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 24 years.