Louis de Zoysa v R

Fitness to plead and stand trial depends on the defendant’s functional capabilities in the particular proceedings. It does not require an ability to understand detailed legal issues or nuanced expert evidence. A fair trial may be secured by proportionate adjustments, including simplified language, an intermediary, breaks and tailored questioning.

A jury view should be ordered only where it has a material prospect of significantly improving the jury’s understanding of relevant evidence. Subjective impressions of a scene are not a substitute for evidence of its impact on the defendant.

The substantive law of unlawful act manslaughter cannot be adapted for autism by judicial direction. Under the Sentencing Act 2020, a whole life order may remain appropriate for the murder of an on-duty police officer despite personal mitigation where the offence is exceptionally serious.

The applicant was unanimously convicted at Northampton Crown Court of the murder of Police Sergeant Matthew Ratana, whom he shot while in police custody. He was sentenced to life imprisonment with a whole life order.

The applicant had autism spectrum disorder and, following a self-inflicted gunshot injury during the incident, significant communication and cognitive difficulties. Fitness to plead had been considered before trial and was reconsidered at a ground-rules hearing. Extensive adaptations, including an intermediary and simplified communication, were put in place. At trial he disputed the intention required for murder and relied on diminished responsibility based on an autistic meltdown.

Renewing applications refused by the single judge, he challenged his fitness to stand trial, the refusal of a jury view of the holding cell, and the manslaughter direction. He also challenged the whole life order as wrong in principle or manifestly excessive.

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

1. The trial judge correctly found the applicant fit to stand trial. The test in R v Pritchard (1836) 7 C&P 303 requires an assessment of the defendant’s functional capacities in the actual proceedings. The applicant did not have to comprehend the detailed law of diminished responsibility or the medical evidence. He needed to understand questions from his lawyers, give intelligible answers, decide whether to act on their advice, and be able to give factual evidence if he chose. The limited issues, extensive adjustments and the course of the trial showed that he could participate fairly.

2. The refusal of a jury view disclosed no error. The trial judge properly asked whether a visit had a material prospect of significantly improving the jury’s understanding of relevant evidence. The decisive issue was the applicant’s reaction and whether he had an autistic meltdown, not a juror’s subjective response to the holding cell. High-quality visual material and the factual and expert evidence enabled the jury to determine that issue.

3. The judge correctly declined to alter the substantive direction on unlawful act manslaughter to reflect autism. That submission was contrary to settled law: see R v Nica [2021] EWCA Crim 1719. Any alteration was for Parliament. The point could not affect the verdict because the jury convicted of murder and therefore found the requisite intention.

4. The whole life order was lawful and not excessive. Applying the Sentencing Act 2020, the court held that murder of an on-duty police officer by an offender aged over 21 normally falls within the whole-life starting point. The sentencing judge was entitled to find the murder exceptionally serious, deliberate and aggravated by the firearm, premeditation and danger to others. He had considered the applicant’s background, autism, injuries and the effect of custody. The approach accorded with R v Stewart [2023] 1 Cr App R (S) 17; the assessment of seriousness was for the sentencing judge.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — In [2025] EWCA Crim 668, the court refused the renewed applications for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence.
• Crown Court sitting at Northampton — Following a trial before Johnson J and a jury, the applicant was unanimously convicted of murder on 23 June 2023. On 27 July 2023, he received life imprisonment with a whole life order.
• Crown Court — Jeremy Baker J found the applicant fit to plead and stand trial on 18 November 2022. Johnson J later reconsidered fitness at a ground-rules hearing and again held that the applicant was fit.