Gurpinar v R

Gurpinar v R

There was insufficient evidence of loss of self-control in both Gurpinar and Kojo-Smith cases to satisfy the statutory requirements for the partial defence of loss of control; the trial judges correctly refused to leave the defence to the jury. The refusal to admit prior convictions and the sentences imposed were within the proper exercise of judicial discretion and not manifestly excessive or disparate.

Parties
Appellant: Mustafa Gurpinar; Respondent: Regina; Appellant: Nii-Azu Kojo-Smith; Applicant: Tony Caton
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 February 2015
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeals dismissed; applications refused.
Legal Topics
Loss of Control Defence, Murder, Manslaughter, Violent Disorder, Jury Directions, Admissibility of Prior Convictions
Criminal Law Loss of Control Defence Murder Manslaughter Violent Disorder Jury Directions Admissibility of Prior Convictions

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mustafa Gurpinar

Appellant

Regina

Respondent

Nii-Azu Kojo-Smith

Appellant

Tony Caton

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Should the partial defence of loss of control be left to the jury in murder trials?
  2. 2 Was there sufficient evidence for loss of self-control under ss.54 and 55 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009?
  3. 3 Was the trial judge correct in refusing to admit prior convictions under s.101(1)(e) Criminal Justice Act 2003?

Ratio Decidendi

There was insufficient evidence of loss of self-control in both Gurpinar and Kojo-Smith cases to satisfy the statutory requirements for the partial defence of loss of control; the trial judges correctly refused to leave the defence to the jury. The refusal to admit prior convictions and the sentences imposed were within the proper exercise of judicial discretion and not manifestly excessive or disparate.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed; applications refused.

Orders

  • Appeal of Gurpinar dismissed.
  • Appeal of Kojo-Smith dismissed.