R v David Odunuga

A judge must leave a lesser alternative offence to the jury where it is obviously raised by the evidence, meaning that it would suggest itself to an ordinarily knowledgeable and alert criminal judge. The question is highly fact-sensitive. In a murder trial, manslaughter need not be left where the evidence does not realistically support an intention to cause less than really serious bodily harm. The jury should assess intention by reference to the injuries actually inflicted and the surrounding evidence. The absence of an attack on an obviously vital area does not, without more, create a realistic basis for a lesser verdict. Speculation about why the attacker did not inflict further injury is not relevant.

The applicant was convicted by a majority of 10 to 2 of murder and possessing an article with a blade or point. He was sentenced to life imprisonment for murder, with a minimum term of 27 years, and to a concurrent term of four years on the second count. The applicant sought an extension of 10 days to renew his application for leave to appeal against conviction after refusal by a single judge.

At trial, the judge declined to leave manslaughter as an alternative verdict. She concluded that the evidence supported only murder or acquittal and that any lesser verdict would require the jury to speculate. The central issue was whether that ruling was arguably wrong.

The application for an extension of time was refused.

1. Applicable test. A judge must leave a lesser alternative offence where it is obviously raised by the evidence. That means an alternative which would suggest itself to an ordinarily knowledgeable and alert criminal judge. The question is highly fact-sensitive, and comparisons with the facts of other cases provide little assistance. The court referred to R v Coutts [2005] EWCA Crim 52 and R v Hodson [2009] EWCA Crim 1590.
2. Application to the evidence. The trial judge applied the correct legal test. The two deeper wounds, measuring 15 and 17 centimetres, undoubtedly amounted to really serious bodily harm. The evidence also showed the use of a particularly dangerous knife, three wounds, moderate or possibly severe force, and a wound travelling upwards towards the groin. In that context, it was unrealistic to suggest that the assailant intended only a lesser degree of harm.
3. Targeting and intention. The fact that the attacker did not target an obviously life-threatening part of the body did not provide a realistic basis for manslaughter. The relevant question was whether there was an intention to cause really serious injury, rather than whether there was an intention to kill. The jury had to assess that issue from the actual injuries and the evidence before it, without speculating why the attacker did not inflict additional or more serious injuries.
4. Disposition. The judge was entitled not to leave manslaughter as an alternative verdict. There was ample evidence to support the murder conviction, and it was unarguable that the conviction was unsafe. The application for an extension of time to renew the application for leave to appeal was therefore refused.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): refused the application for an extension of time to renew the application for leave to appeal against conviction. [2025] EWCA Crim 532.
• Inner London Crown Court: convicted the applicant by a majority of 10 to 2 of murder and possessing an article with a blade or point, and sentenced him accordingly. The trial judge ruled that manslaughter should not be left as an alternative verdict.