R v Shane James Henderson Myles
[2023] EWCA Crim 943
R v Lea Rose Cheng
25 October 2024
[2024] EWCA Crim 1400
Court of Appeal
A woman was convicted of murder. She argued she lost control, but the court said there wasn't enough evidence to support that claim. The judge correctly decided there wasn't enough proof of a sudden loss of control caused by something that would make a normal person react similarly, so the jury didn't get to consider it. The appeal failed.
Key Facts
- •Lea Rose Cheng was convicted of the murder of Dylan Bacon (DB) on September 4, 2023.
- •Cheng stabbed DB with a kitchen knife; she claimed to have no memory of the stabbing.
- •The prosecution did not dispute that Cheng inflicted the stab wounds.
- •DB suffered eight incised wounds, two of which were deep stab wounds.
- •Cheng had a domestic violence alarm in her flat, which was activated after DB left.
- •Cheng had a small puncture wound to her thigh.
- •A black bra with damage was found near Cheng and DB’s belongings; forensic evidence linked both to the bra.
- •Cheng's DNA was found on DB's penile swabs, and DB's DNA was found on the bra Cheng was wearing.
- •Cheng had a history of mental health issues and had been subjected to domestic violence.
- •The defence argued for the partial defence of loss of control under section 54(1) of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009.
Legal Principles
Partial defence of loss of control under section 54(1) of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 requires three components: loss of self-control, a qualifying trigger, and a reaction that a person of D's sex and age, with a normal degree of tolerance and self-restraint and in the circumstances of D, might have reacted in the same or in a similar way to D.
Coroners and Justice Act 2009, section 54(1)
The judge must assess the three components sequentially. If there is insufficient evidence of one component, there is no need to consider the others.
R v Gurpinar [2015] EWCA Crim 178
The judge's role is to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to leave the defence to the jury, not to make findings of fact.
R v Jewell [2014] EWCA Crim 414
Self-defence and loss of control are distinct defences, but both may be relevant in appropriate cases.
R v Goodwin [2018] EWCA Crim 2287 and R v Jovan [2017] EWCA Crim 1359
Outcomes
The appeal against conviction was dismissed.
The court found that the judge correctly determined there was insufficient evidence of loss of control to leave the defence to the jury. The evidence of a frenzied attack was weak, the damage to the living room was insignificant, and the evidence of a non-consensual sexual assault was speculative. The judge properly fulfilled his role as gatekeeper in assessing the evidence.