R v Harry Turner
[2023] EWCA Crim 1626
R v Thomas Michael Nutt
5 October 2023
[2023] EWCA Crim 1575
Court of Appeal
A man was convicted of murdering his wife. He appealed, arguing the judge didn't properly explain the law on drunkenness affecting intent. The appeal court said there wasn't enough evidence he was drunk when he killed her, and even if there was a mistake, there was plenty of other evidence to show he was guilty.
Key Facts
- •Thomas Michael Nutt was convicted of murdering his wife, Dawn Walker.
- •He initially pleaded guilty to manslaughter, the trial focused on intent to kill or cause really serious harm.
- •The couple married on October 27, 2021, and went to Skegness.
- •Mrs. Walker's body was found in a suitcase near their home on October 31, 2021.
- •Nutt's statement to police implicated him in her death, describing a fight and chokehold.
- •The prosecution argued the murder happened on the night of the wedding (October 27-28), relying on neighbor testimony, CCTV, and ANPR evidence.
- •The defense argued the murder occurred on October 30-31, based on Nutt's account.
- •A jury note questioned the effect of intoxication on the law.
- •The judge's response to the jury's question is the main ground of appeal.
Legal Principles
A judge must give a direction on intoxication if there is evidence of drunkenness that might raise an issue about whether specific intent could be formed.
Aidid v The Queen [2021] EWCA Crim 581
A judge is only required to provide a direction in relation to a matter upon which the jury could reasonably come to a particular conclusion.
Alexander Von Starck v The Queen [2000] 1 WLR 1270
Failure to give an intoxication direction, or to deliver it precisely, may not necessarily result in an unsafe verdict; this depends on all the evidence and directions given.
Aidid v The Queen [2021] EWCA Crim 581
Outcomes
Leave to appeal refused.
The court found insufficient evidence of intoxication at the time of the killing to necessitate a full intoxication direction. Even if a direction was needed, the strong evidence against the applicant and lack of other trial errors made the conviction safe.