Key Facts
- •A 15-year-old (AZR) and his co-accused (A) were convicted of murder.
- •AZR carried a sword stick, used it to fatally stab a 14-year-old (Maatou).
- •The incident followed a confrontation with Hyams and Maatou, with Hyams wielding a knife.
- •AZR claimed self-defense, stating he panicked after Hyams' knife attack.
- •CCTV footage showed the events and AZR's actions.
- •The trial judge refused to leave the partial defense of loss of control to the jury.
Legal Principles
A judge must leave to the jury any obvious alternative offense supported by evidence (Coutts).
Coutts [2007] 1 Cr App R 6
The test for leaving the defense of loss of control to the jury involves a commonsense judgment based on all evidence; the appellate court will not readily interfere with the trial judge's judgment unless it's wrong.
Goodwin [2018] EWCA Crim 2287
Sufficient evidence must be adduced to raise the issue of loss of control (Coroners and Justice Act 2009, s.54(6)).
Coroners and Justice Act 2009, s.54(6)
A loss of self-control must be attributable to fear of serious violence from the victim (Coroners and Justice Act 2009, s.55(3)).
Coroners and Justice Act 2009, s.55(3)
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The judge correctly refused to leave the defense of loss of control to the jury because there was insufficient evidence of loss of self-control and no qualifying trigger. The appellant's actions, as shown on CCTV, demonstrated control, not loss of control. Further, his actions appeared to be revenge, not self-defense.