Court of Appeal Orders Retrial in R v Harry Turner: Key Issue of Loss of Control Defence Examined

Introduction

The case of R v Harry Turner before the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) offers a profound analysis of the partial defence of loss of control in a charge of murder, as outlined within the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. This article examines the critical aspects of the judgment, detailing the legal principles and rationale underpinning the court’s decision to quash the original conviction and order a retrial.

Key Facts

Harry Turner was convicted of the murder of his wife, Sally Turner, and subsequently appealed against his conviction. The appeal raised two main issues: whether the trial judge was correct to withhold the partial defence of loss of control from the jury’s consideration, and whether the judge should have given a good character direction in relation to the defendant’s credibility.

The appeal was based on the core premise that the appellant had lost self-control as a result of a claimed remark from the victim about the appellant’s access to their children, perceived as a pivotal element in triggering his actions. The trial judge had previously ruled out the partial defence of loss of control, deeming there was insufficient evidence to submit it to the jury for determination.

Legal Principals

The legal principles at stake revolved around sections 54 and 55 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, which set the statutory frame for the partial defence of loss of control in murder cases. The following points form the crux of this defence:

1. Loss of self-control as a result of a “qualifying trigger”.
2. The qualifying trigger being something done or said constituting circumstances of an “extremely grave character” and causing a “justifiable sense of being seriously wronged”.
3. The reaction of the appellant must be how a person of their sex and age, with a “normal degree of tolerance and self-restraint” and in the circumstances of the appellant, might have reacted.

The court emphasised the necessity for sufficient evidence on each element, with the trial judge acting as a gatekeeper as to whether the defence proceeds to a jury. In line with the case R v Dawes [2013] EWCA Crim 322, if the defence is to be left to the jury’s determination, the prosecution must disprove it beyond reasonable doubt.

Significantly, the court held that the trial judge inappropriately evaluated evidence on matters which should have been within the purview of the jury. This misstep, according to the appellate court, warranted the quashing of the conviction.

Outcomes

The court’s analysis centred on whether the judge’s exercise of his gatekeeping role under the statutory provisions was correct. It was determined that he erred in his evaluation, as the jury could have reasonably concluded that a loss of control was possible in light of the appellant’s specific circumstances, including his reaction to the alleged grave trigger.

The court also noted that a good character direction related to the appellant’s credibility was warranted due to his lack of previous convictions, although this would not weigh on propensity in light of the admitted unlawful killing. The omission of such direction contributed to the decision to allow the appeal. The appeal succeeded on these grounds, the conviction of murder was quashed, and a retrial was ordered.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal’s judgment in R v Harry Turner underscores the restrictive nature of the partial defence of loss of control and the importance of a meticulous evaluation by the trial judge. The judgment reaffirms that while the judge serves as a filter, the ultimate determination lies with the jury, based on the evidence presented. The case illustrates the complexities inherent in cases of loss of control, with potential implications for future matters where this defence is at issue.