Key Facts
- •Morteza Jodeiri-Lakpour (appellant) was convicted of making a threat to kill contrary to section 16 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861.
- •The conviction stemmed from an argument with his wife, Oksana Khylenko, where he repeatedly said "I want to kill you" and "I will kill you."
- •A recording of the argument existed, and the appellant admitted to it being his voice but denied threatening to kill.
- •The appellant was acquitted on a separate count of controlling or coercive behaviour.
- •The appeal focused on the judge's failure to give a 'recent complaint direction' regarding evidence of previous complaints about the appellant's behaviour.
Legal Principles
A recent complaint direction should be given where evidence is adduced of a complaint made out of court. Such evidence does not independently support the complainant's evidence.
Crown Court Compendium 2022
Failure to give a necessary direction does not automatically render a conviction unsafe. The court considers the facts, issues, and the relevance of the omitted direction.
R v Stoddart 2 Cr App R 217 and case law discussed in paragraphs 25-30
In determining the safety of a conviction, the court assesses whether the omission of a direction materially impacted the jury's consideration of the key issue.
R v AA [2007] EWCA Crim 1779 and subsequent cases discussed in paragraphs 27-29
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed. The conviction is safe.
The court found that the failure to give a recent complaint direction did not materially affect the jury's consideration of the appellant's intention, which was the key issue in the threat to kill charge. The jury focused on the evidence from the night in question (the recording, and the complainant and appellant's testimony) and understood the need to assess the appellant's intent. The evidence of prior threats, though not properly directed upon, was not crucial to the conviction.