Jackson, R. v [2023] EWCA Crim 735 (28 June 2023)

Jackson, R. v [2023] EWCA Crim 735 (28 June 2023)

The judge's directions on loss of control, including the cumulative impact of alleged abuse, were fair and adequate; the prosecution was not obliged to call or tender unused witnesses; the release of digital evidence to the press did not render the conviction unsafe; and no material irregularity or unfairness occurred to undermine the safety of the conviction.

Citation
[2023] EWCA Crim 735
Parties
Appellant: Rex; Respondent: Penelope Jackson
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 June 2023
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Renewed Application for Leave to Appeal Conviction
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Murder, Loss of Control, Domestic Abuse, Coercive Control, Jury Directions, Calling of Witnesses, Media Reporting During Trial
Criminal Law Murder Loss of Control Domestic Abuse Coercive Control Jury Directions Calling of Witnesses Media Reporting During Trial

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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rex

Appellant

Penelope Jackson

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Renewed Application for Leave to Appeal Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge's directions on loss of control were adequate in the context of alleged coercive control and domestic abuse
  2. 2 Whether the judge erred in summarising the prosecution case as alleging fabrication or exaggeration of abuse without this being put in cross-examination
  3. 3 Whether the prosecution should have been compelled to call or tender certain witnesses or the judge should have called them

Ratio Decidendi

The judge's directions on loss of control, including the cumulative impact of alleged abuse, were fair and adequate; the prosecution was not obliged to call or tender unused witnesses; the release of digital evidence to the press did not render the conviction unsafe; and no material irregularity or unfairness occurred to undermine the safety of the conviction.

Court Disposition

application dismissed