Jaden Drake & Anor v R
[2023] EWCA Crim 1454
R v EE
23 October 2024
[2024] EWCA Crim 1345
Court of Appeal
A man was convicted of killing his wife. He argued he lost control, but the judge didn't let the jury consider this. The higher court agreed with the judge about the conviction, but thought the 25-year prison sentence was too long and reduced it.
Key Facts
- •EE was convicted of murdering his wife on June 1, 2022.
- •The jury rejected his partial defence of diminished responsibility.
- •The trial judge ruled there was insufficient evidence for a partial defence of loss of control.
- •EE and the deceased were in the process of divorcing.
- •EE was convinced his wife was unfaithful.
- •The deceased sustained 15 sharp force injuries, including a fatal stab wound to the neck.
- •EE had stab wounds to his abdomen, claiming they were inflicted by the deceased.
- •EE made allegations of past domestic abuse by the deceased.
- •EE made 'no comment' in interview and did not give evidence at trial.
- •EE told psychiatrists and a psychologist that he lost control after the deceased stabbed him.
- •The trial judge ruled there was insufficient evidence of loss of control to leave the defence to the jury.
Legal Principles
The three components of Section 54(1)(a)-(c) of the Coroners and Justice Act 2007 (loss of control, qualifying trigger, and a normal person test) must be considered sequentially. If there is insufficient evidence of loss of control, the other two components need not be considered.
R v Gurpinar [2015] EWCA Crim 178 at [13]
A judge must conduct a rigorous evaluation of the evidence on the most favourable reading to the defendant, but must withdraw a defence if there is insufficient evidence.
Goodwin (Anthony) [2018] EWCA 2287 @ [35], [38]
The judge's duty is to make a common sense judgment based on an analysis of all the evidence.
Goodwin (Anthony) [2018] EWCA 2287 @ [35]
Outcomes
The renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction was refused.
The judge's conclusion that there was insufficient evidence of loss of control was upheld. The court found the judge conducted a proper and rigorous evaluation of the evidence.
The appeal against sentence was allowed in part.
The 25-year minimum term was considered manifestly excessive. The court reduced the minimum term to 21 years less 506 days spent on remand, taking into account mitigating factors not sufficiently considered at the original sentencing.