R v Shofah-El-Israel

On an application for leave to appeal based on fresh evidence, the question is whether the material arguably provides a ground for allowing the appeal by undermining the safety of the conviction. The court assesses the new evidence in the context of the whole trial case. A post-mortem that leaves the cause of death unascertained, and the absence of DNA or other forensic links, are neutral where they do not exclude unlawful violence or the required intent. An unascertained cause of death is not evidence of accidental death or lack of murderous intent. A lesser verdict such as manslaughter requires a real evidential basis on which a properly directed jury could rationally reject the requisite intent. The court may decide the application without further investigation where proposed enquiries are speculative or unlikely to produce material evidence.

The applicant was convicted of murdering Joy Morgan at the Crown Court at Reading before Mr Justice Soole and received a life sentence with a minimum term of 17 years, less time spent on remand. The prosecution case was entirely circumstantial, and neither the deceased’s body nor forensic evidence linking the applicant to the killing had been available at trial.

The body was found approximately two months after conviction. The applicant sought an extension of time and leave to appeal, relying on fresh pathology, DNA, toxicology and other forensic material. He argued that the evidence undermined the findings of murderous intent, weakened the circumstantial case, and provided a basis for leaving accidental death or manslaughter to the jury. The central issue was whether the fresh material arguably rendered the conviction unsafe.

The court granted the extension of time and admitted Dr Randall’s pathology report and the disclosed forensic material for the purpose of considering leave. It nevertheless refused leave because the fresh evidence did not arguably undermine the safety of the murder conviction.

1. Further investigation. The court could determine the application on the material before it. Further toxicology and DNA work was unlikely to be determinative or fruitful, and proposed investigation in other fields was speculative. No additional evidence or enquiry was required before deciding the application.
2. Intent and pathology. Sexual assault was not alleged by the prosecution and was not an issue for the jury. The absence of injuries of a sexual nature therefore did not affect the safety of the conviction. The pathology evidence left the cause of death unascertained and identified no significant traumatic or toxicological cause. It remained consistent with restriction of the airway, including strangling or smothering. It was neutral as to the cause of death and did not undermine the jury’s findings that the applicant used unlawful violence intending to kill or cause really serious injury.
3. Circumstantial evidence. The discovery and location of the body were consistent with, and strengthened, the prosecution case. The absence of DNA linking the applicant to the body was also neutral. It did not exclude his involvement and could be explained by the passage of time and the careful wrapping and concealment of the body. The low-level incomplete DNA result from the tape did not establish a third-party contributor and did not undermine the conviction. Evidence concerning MDMA likewise strengthened the connection between the applicant and the deceased rather than weakening the case.
4. Manslaughter. The relevant question was whether the fresh evidence provided a real evidential basis on which a properly directed jury could rationally find unlawful killing without the necessary intent. An unascertained cause of death was not evidence of accidental death or absent murderous intent. The fresh evidence supplied no positive basis for a manslaughter verdict, and the applicant’s continuing complete denial of involvement provided no positive alternative case.

The court concluded that the fresh evidence did not arguably undermine the findings that the applicant killed Ms Morgan by unlawful violence with the necessary intent, nor provide an arguable basis for an alternative manslaughter verdict. The application for leave to appeal was refused.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — Granted an extension of time and admitted the fresh evidence, but refused leave to appeal because the conviction was not arguably unsafe: [2026] EWCA Crim 954 .
• Crown Court at Reading — Before Mr Justice Soole, the applicant was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 17 years, less time spent on remand.