R v Kai Howitt

A jury direction concerning a young defendant must address the requirements applicable to the issues at trial. In a self-defence case, the defendant’s age and characteristics may be relevant to whether he believed force was necessary and whether the force used was reasonable. A direction identifying those matters and explaining how youth, developmental disorder and autism may affect emotional control, awareness of risk and appreciation of consequences can be adequate. R v ZA [2023] EWCA Crim 596, concerning the treatment of youth in criminal proceedings, particularly sentencing, does not require a separate focused jury direction in a young person’s trial.

Following a trial before Turner J and a jury in the Crown Court at Nottingham, the applicant was convicted of murder on 7 June 2024. He renewed his application for leave to appeal against conviction after refusal by a single judge and also sought an extension of time of 19 days.

The applicant denied intending to kill or cause really serious harm and relied on self-defence. He argued that the jury had not received a sufficiently focused direction addressing his age and characteristics, relying on R v ZA [2023] EWCA Crim 596. The central issue was whether the trial judge’s directions were adequate.

1. The renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction and the application for an extension of time were refused. The proposed grounds had no arguable merit, so an extension would serve no purpose.
2. In a murder trial where intention to cause at least really serious harm and self-defence are in issue, the jury must be directed on those matters by reference to the evidence and the defendant’s circumstances. The trial judge’s written directions and route to verdict clearly identified the questions for the jury.
3. The self-defence direction was properly tailored. It directed the jury to take the applicant’s age and characteristics into account when deciding whether he believed that force was necessary and whether the amount of force used was reasonable at the time. The judge also reminded the jury that the applicant was 18 at the time and had a developmental disorder and autism.
4. The further direction that young people may not yet have fully developed emotional control, restraint, awareness of risk, or appreciation of the consequences of actions, and that educational difficulties and mental health issues may affect those processes, was apt to the case. The jury was directed to apply those considerations to its assessment of the defendants’ acts and intentions, considering each separately.
5. R v ZA [2023] EWCA Crim 596 did not assist the proposed appeal. It concerned how youth should be dealt with during criminal proceedings, particularly in relation to sentence, rather than how a jury should be directed when a young person stands trial.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction and the application for an extension of time were refused: [2025] EWCA Crim 919.
• Crown Court at Nottingham: Following a trial before Turner J and a jury, the applicant was convicted of murder on 7 June 2024.
• Single judge: The applicant’s initial application for leave to appeal against conviction was refused; that refusal was renewed before the Court of Appeal.