R v Lea Rose Cheng
[2024] EWCA Crim 1400
R v Penelope Jackson
28 June 2023
[2023] EWCA Crim 735
Court of Appeal
A woman was convicted of murdering her husband. She claimed he abused her for years, causing her to lose control and kill him. The court agreed that years of abuse could be a reason to lose control, but they still thought the evidence showed she intended to kill him, so they didn't overturn the conviction. They also said the prosecution did nothing wrong by not calling certain witnesses or releasing some video evidence to the press during the trial.
Key Facts
- •Penelope Jackson (66) convicted of murdering her husband, David Jackson (78), on October 29, 2021.
- •The killing occurred after a birthday meal during which an argument ensued.
- •Jackson stabbed her husband four times, causing fatal injuries.
- •The defense argued loss of control due to a long history of coercive control by the deceased.
- •The prosecution argued intent to kill and lack of loss of control, relying on the 999 call, Jackson's statements, a confession note, and witness testimonies.
- •The defense presented evidence of years of physical, mental, and sexual abuse, including an incident on December 23, 2020, involving threats and property damage.
- •The defense sought to have several witnesses, whose statements were disclosed but not served as part of the prosecution case, called by the prosecution or the judge.
- •The court released digital footage of the 999 call and arrest to the press during the trial.
- •Jackson's conviction was appealed on four grounds: inadequate direction on loss of control, misrepresentation of the prosecution's case regarding invented/exaggerated abuse, failure to call prosecution witnesses, and premature release of digital evidence.
Legal Principles
Loss of control does not need to be sudden and can be triggered by the cumulative impact of a pattern of events, particularly in coercive control relationships.
Case law (implied, not explicitly cited)
The prosecution has discretion in choosing which witnesses to call, and there is no obligation to call witnesses whose statements were disclosed but not served as part of the prosecution case.
R v Russell-Jones [1995] 1 Cr App R 538
The judge has the power under s.4(2) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 to postpone publication of reports to avoid substantial risk of injustice.
Section 4(2) Contempt of Court Act 1981
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed; conviction upheld.
The court found the judge's directions on loss of control to be adequate, the prosecution's summary of its case fair, the prosecution's decision not to call the witnesses reasonable, and the release of digital evidence not to have prejudiced the trial.