Daryl Derek Richardson v R

There is no presumption that a defendant in criminal proceedings will receive an intermediary. Appointment is exceptional and depends on whether communication needs can be met through trial adjustments and clear, repeated explanations from legal representatives. A defendant need not admit involvement in a killing before relying on diminished responsibility under the Homicide Act 1957; however, except in rare cases, the defence requires evidence of mental processes at the relevant time and the defendant’s role. A defence omitted at trial may be raised on appeal only exceptionally and with a reasonable and persuasive explanation. Expert evidence about ADHD or ASD is fact-sensitive. Fresh evidence must also satisfy section 23(2) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968.

The appellant was jointly tried at Lewes Crown Court and convicted of murder. He received a life sentence with a minimum term of 25 years less time spent in custody. He applied for extensions of time, leave to adduce fresh evidence, and leave to appeal against conviction and sentence.

The proposed grounds concerned the absence of an intermediary, psychiatric evidence relating to diminished responsibility, psychiatric and psychological evidence for the jury, the advice not to give evidence, and the alleged excessiveness of the minimum term. The central issues were whether the fresh evidence could afford any ground for allowing the appeal and whether the conviction was unsafe or the sentence manifestly excessive.

The court refused all applications for extensions of time, leave to adduce fresh evidence, and leave to appeal against conviction and sentence.

1. Fresh evidence. Section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 required consideration of whether the evidence was capable of belief, might afford a ground for allowing the appeal, would have been admissible below, and whether there was a reasonable explanation for its absence at trial.
2. Intermediary. The applicable Criminal Practice Direction, reflecting R v Cox [2012] EWCA Crim 549, established that there was no presumption that a defendant would receive an intermediary. The court retained an inherent power, but should adapt the trial process and consider whether legal representatives could meet the defendant’s communication needs. The appellant’s counsel had used simple explanations, repetition and appropriate conferences. The trial process had also been adjusted. The appellant understood the advice about giving evidence and made a considered decision not to testify. The fresh evidence did not afford a ground for allowing the appeal.
3. Diminished responsibility. Under section 2 of the Homicide Act 1957, a defendant need not admit participation in a killing before advancing the partial defence. However, as explained through R v Erskine and another [2009] EWCA Crim 1425 and R v Curran [2021] EWCA Crim 1999, it would ordinarily be very difficult to assess substantial impairment without evidence of the defendant’s mental processes and role at the relevant time. The expert evidence was insufficient and internally inconsistent. There was no reasonable explanation for the proper decision not to obtain it at trial.
4. Evidence for the jury. R v Sossongo [2021] EWCA Crim 1777 showed that evidence about ADHD or ASD could be relevant in a secondary-party murder case, depending on the facts. Here, the appellant had not given evidence and had provided no relevant account of his thought processes, intention or knowledge. The proposed evidence could not assist the jury.
5. Sentence. The minimum term was not manifestly excessive. The trial judge knew of the appellant’s conditions, there was no evidence that they reduced culpability, and the finding of a senior role, together with the previous convictions, made the sentence proper.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On applications referred to the full court, refused extensions of time, leave to adduce fresh evidence, and leave to appeal against conviction and sentence: [2026] EWCA Crim 1131 .
• Lewes Crown Court: The appellant was jointly convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 25 years less time spent in custody.