Coercive Control: An Offence But Not a Defence: R v Challen [2019] EWCA Crim 916, Court of Appeal
| Author | Tony Storey |
| Published date | 01 December 2019 |
| Date | 01 December 2019 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/0022018319889168 |
| Subject Matter | Case Notes |
Case Note
Coercive Control: An Offence
But Not a Defence
R v Challen [2019] EWCA Crim 916, Court of Appeal
Keywords
Murder, manslaughter, diminished responsibility, loss of control
In August 2010, Sally Challen (C), then aged 56, killed her 61-year-old husband, Richard Challen (R),
with at least 20 blows of a hammer at their family home in Surrey. They had been married for 31 years
but R had been ‘unfaithful on several occasions’ which had caused C ‘considerable distress’. Eventually,
in 2009, C moved out of the family home and began divorce proceedings. However, C found it ‘difficult
to cope’ with the situation and in June 2010 proposed a reconciliation, to which R agreed. Shortly
afterwards, she rescinded the decree nisi which had been obtained by this point in time, and the couple
agreed to sell the family home and go to Australia for six months.
Nevertheless, C remained suspicious about R’s relationships with other women. On the fateful day, C
and R met at the family home to clear out the house and garage in advance of their overseas trip. In the
afternoon, C went out to buy food but on her return she noticed that the phone had been moved. She
dialled the last-called number and realised that R had rung another woman. C proceeded to prepare lunch
but while R was eating she produced a hammer that she had brought with her and killed him. C then left
the family home and returned to her own property where she spent the night. The next day she called her
cousin and said she was at Beachy Head in East Sussex. The cousin called the police and a chaplain, who
arrived just as C was walking towards the cliff edge. Over the next four hours she told a police negotiator
that she felt like R had treated her ‘appallingly badly’ over the years and that she was ‘very depressed’.
Eventually she agreed to leave the cliff edge and was arrested. C was charged with murder and appeared
before HHJ Critchlow and a jury at Guildford Crown Court in June 2011.
At trial, C pleaded guilty to manslaughter on grounds of diminished responsibility. This was based on
depression (she had first visited a doctor in 2004 after discovering her husband’s infidelity and had been
prescribed antidepressant medication in 2008). She did not argue the defence of provocation (subse-
quently abolished by the entry into force of s 56 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 in October 2010,
but which was still available at the time of the killing) but HHJ Critchlow left it to the jury alongside
diminished responsibility. The jury rejected both defences and C was convicted of murder. She was
sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum specified period of 22 years. An appeal against sentence
was allowed and the minimum term was reduced to 18 years (R v Challen [2011] EWCA Crim 2919).
Several years later, C appealed on the basis of fresh psychiatric evidence which had been unavailable
at the time of the trial. Leave to appeal was granted in March 2018 (R v Challen [2018] EWCA Crim
471). At the appeal, it was contended that this fresh evidence suggested that C had a borderline
personality disorder and a severe mood disorder (specifically, bipolar affective disorder) at the time
of the killing. It was further contended that the fresh evidence revealed that C was the victim of R’s
controlling behaviour during their marriage. This latter argument was su pported by, inter alia,the
couple’s adult sons, David and James Challen, and C’s cousin, who said that during their marriage R
‘pulled the strings’ and C ‘danced’. This evidence was potentially more significant given that
The Journal of Criminal Law
2019, Vol. 83(6) 513–515
ªThe Author(s) 2019
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0022018319889168
journals.sagepub.com/home/clj
To continue reading
Request your trial