R v Shane James Henderson Myles
[2023] EWCA Crim 943
R v Harry Turner
13 December 2023
[2023] EWCA Crim 1626
Court of Appeal
A man was convicted of murdering his wife. The appeal court said the judge made too many decisions himself that should have been left to the jury to decide, and ordered a new trial.
Key Facts
- •Harry Turner convicted of murdering his wife, Sally Turner.
- •Conviction appealed due to the judge's withdrawal of the partial defense of loss of control and failure to give a good character direction.
- •The murder involved multiple stab wounds; the appellant claimed loss of control after Sally said he would never see his children again.
- •The appellant had previously expressed concerns about Sally's care of the children and suspected infidelity.
- •The prosecution presented evidence of a highly sexualized relationship between Sally and one of their children's taxi drivers.
- •The judge found insufficient evidence to support the loss of control defense, primarily due to the number of stab wounds, the targeted nature of some injuries and the appellant’s behavior after the attack.
- •The appellant had no prior convictions.
Legal Principles
Partial defense of loss of control (sections 54 and 55 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009)
Coroners and Justice Act 2009
Sufficient evidence for a partial defense to be left to the jury; rigorous evaluation by the trial judge.
R v Gurpinar [2015] EWCA Crim 178, R v Goodwin [2018] EWCA Crim 2287, R v Dawes [2013] EWCA Crim 322
Good character direction; relevance to credibility.
Not explicitly sourced in specific case law within the provided document, but discussed as a general principle.
Sexual infidelity cannot itself provide a qualifying trigger for loss of control, but may be considered as context.
R v Clinton [2012] EWCA Crim 2
Outcomes
Appeal allowed; conviction quashed.
The trial judge erred in withdrawing the partial defense of loss of control and failing to give a good character direction. The court found the judge improperly drew inferences and made findings that should have been left to the jury.
Retrial ordered.
The Court of Appeal did not find a substantial risk to the administration of justice in a retrial.