26 Aug 2025
The murder conviction was quashed due to a prosecutorial error affecting credibility, but because the case was not one of insufficient evidence and prejudice from publication, appellant testimony or delay can be mitigated by trial judge measures, the interests of justice require a retrial on a fresh indictment rather than substitution of a manslaughter verdict.
31 Jul 2025
Admissible fresh call records proved the appellant did receive a return call from the deceased and therefore the prosecution's allegation that the appellant lied on that pivotal point constituted a material irregularity affecting his credibility and the safety of the conviction; although defence counsel's conduct was not found to be flagrantly incompetent, the fresh evidence required quashing the murder conviction; the proviso could not sensibly be applied to uphold the conviction and the conviction was quashed and a verdict of acquittal ordered under s.83(3).
28 Feb 2025
No misdirection occurred because the judge correctly and repeatedly instructed that the burden was on the prosecution; there was no evidential foundation for a self-defence direction (evidence and admissions showed the applicant was the initial and continuing aggressor, his admissions/CCTV statements demonstrated intent to kill, and forensic evidence supported defensive wounds on the deceased), therefore the judge properly refused to leave self-defence and refusal did not constitute an appellate error.
10 Dec 2024
Conviction quashed and retrial ordered because exclusion of the clinical psychologist's evidence on the issue of diminished responsibility was a material irregularity rendering the trial unfair; by contrast the trial judge was entitled to leave the murder charge to the jury and her directions on 'substantial' were adequate given the experts' equivocal evidence and relevant factual issues.
21 Mar 2024
Leave to appeal was refused because there was no proper evidential basis on the trial evidence to require a self‑defence direction; the Judge correctly instructed on 'unlawful' killing and burden of proof, the summing‑up fairly presented and assessed competing evidence and credibility, and no special inferential direction was required for post‑offence statements which constituted direct evidence of state of mind.
16 Mar 2023
Given deliberate conduct amounting to borderline murderous intent (returning home twice, changing clothes, arming himself) and persistent alcohol dependence with high relapse risk and limited insight, the proper starting point was 16 years' imprisonment for manslaughter by reason of diminished responsibility; the appellant was not entitled to a full one‑third plea discount because he pleaded to manslaughter simpliciter, ran multiple defences at trial and did not comply with Lam Kai Man formality, and a 20% discount was appropriate, producing a sentence of 12 years and 9 months' imprisonment.
17 Feb 2023
The Court held the trial judge's directions were legally adequate: causation direction conformed to Specimen Direction 20 and was not erroneous; no Woollin/Nedrick or Kevin Brown directions were required on these facts; the question whether the acts formed a sequence of events was properly left to the jury under the single transaction rule; evidence regarding X was admissible for context and properly neutralised by emphatic directions; and the imposed sentences were within lawful range and not manifestly excessive. Accordingly leave to appeal was refused and all appeals dismissed.
17 Feb 2023
The Court held the trial judge's directions on causation, sequence of events and intent were legally sound and complied with authoritative specimen directions; the single transaction rule applied so no further technical definition of "sequence" was required; no Woollin/Nedrick or Kevin Brown directions were necessitated on these facts; joinder and admission of evidence concerning the other child's ill-treatment were proper and not prejudicial given emphatic limiting directions; sentences imposed were proportionate and not manifestly excessive. Accordingly leave to appeal was refused and all a…
7 Dec 2022
Read as a whole the trial judge's summing‑up properly and adequately conveyed the relevant legal principles (Mushtaq/Liberato and burden/standard of proof), the applicant's interview contained an unequivocal admission he took the knife, a Liberato direction was not required on these facts, and there was no real prejudice rendering the conviction unsafe; leave to appeal was refused and the appeals dismissed.
6 Jan 2022
Because the CCTV evidence demonstrated the deceased was the initial aggressor and the appellant consistently asserted self-defence, the Court concluded he did not, on the facts found, sufficiently bring suspicion upon himself to defeat an award of costs; accordingly the appellant was entitled to recover his legal aid contributions for trial and appeal and costs incidental to trial (taxed if not agreed).