R v Henry Houghton

A submission of no case to answer should be left to the jury where the prosecution evidence enables a properly directed jury to be sure of the material facts and necessary inferences. Closely contested timings and competing inferences do not require withdrawal of the case. Directions on circumstantial evidence are adequate where they fairly summarise the disputed issues, evidence and defence, and do not confuse or mislead the jury. A conventional route to verdict need not repeat the unanimity requirement at every question where the usual unanimous-verdict direction makes it clear. On sentence, the judge may rely on the evidential and jury findings rejecting self-defence and may apply the appropriate statutory starting point notwithstanding a different verdict for a co-accused.

The applicant was convicted of murder in the Crown Court at Preston on 13 March 2024 and sentenced to custody for life, with a minimum term of 20 years less 224 days spent on remand. A co-accused was acquitted.

The applicant renewed his applications for permission to appeal against conviction and sentence, and sought a representation order, following refusal by a single judge. The conviction grounds concerned the submission of no case to answer, directions on circumstantial evidence and inferences, and unanimity at each stage of the route to verdict. The sentence grounds challenged the evidential basis for rejecting self-defence, the effect of the co-accused’s acquittal, and the use of a 25-year starting point. The central issues were whether the case had properly been left to the jury and whether the sentencing conclusions were open to the judge.

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

1. The submission of no case to answer was properly rejected. The prosecution evidence raised material issues concerning the preparation and purpose of the weapon, the applicant’s knowledge of whether the principal was armed, and the parties’ knowledge and intentions during the attack. Those matters were capable of supporting conclusions by a properly directed jury. They were matters for the jury, even though the timing and competing inferences were closely debated.
2. The directions on circumstantial evidence and inferences disclosed no error. The judge fairly and proportionately summarised the factual disputes, the relevant prosecution evidence and the applicant’s defence. The directions enabled the jury to assess the evidence and draw conclusions from facts of which they were sure. There was no realistic basis for concluding that the jury had been confused or led astray.
3. The route to verdict did not require an express repetition that the jury had to be unanimous on each question. The questions conventionally asked whether the jury were sure, and the summing-up contained the usual direction to reach a unanimous verdict. Nothing suggested that a majority direction was required.
4. The sentencing judge was entitled to reject self-defence and to proceed on the basis that the applicant was party to taking a knife from the alleyway to the scene of the murder. The acquittal of the co-accused did not prevent different factual conclusions being reached about the applicant’s role. Under section 275 of the Sentencing Act 2020, custody for life was fixed by law. A 25-year starting point under Schedule 21 paragraph 4 was appropriate, subject to the judge’s assessment of aggravation, mitigation and the applicant’s secondary role. The resulting minimum term was within the legitimate sentencing discretion.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): refused the renewed applications for permission to appeal against conviction and sentence: [2025] EWCA Crim 973.
• Single judge: refused the initial applications for permission to appeal.
• Crown Court at Preston: convicted the applicant of murder and sentenced him to custody for life with a minimum term of 20 years less 224 days on remand.