The Queen of on the Application of Ashley Charles v Criminal Cases Review Commission
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Justice Gross,Mr Justice Singh |
| Judgment Date | 25 May 2017 |
| Neutral Citation | [2017] EWHC 1219 (Admin) |
| Docket Number | Case No: CO/3595/2016 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Date | 25 May 2017 |
[2017] EWHC 1219 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Lord Justice Gross
Mr Justice Singh
Case No: CO/3595/2016
Stephen Cragg QC and Kate O'Raghallaigh (instructed by GT Stewart Solicitors and Advocates) for the Claimant
Danny Friedman QC and Marc Brown (instructed by Criminal Cases Review Commission) for the Defendant
Hearing dates: 09 May, 2017
Judgment Approved
INTRODUCTION
Pursuant to permission granted by King J, the Claimant, a prisoner serving a sentence of life imprisonment for murder, challenges the decision of the Criminal Cases Review Commission ("the CCRC"), dated 7 th April, 2016 ("the Decision") not to refer his conviction to the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) ("CACD").
Established by the Criminal Appeal Act 1995 ("the 1995 Act"), the CCRC now forms an integral part of the protection available in this jurisdiction against the risk and consequences of wrongful conviction, exercising a residual jurisdiction.
By s.9(1)(a) of the 1995 Act, where a person has been convicted of an offence on indictment in England and Wales, the CCRC may refer the conviction to the CACD. By s.9(2) of the 1995 Act, such a reference shall be treated for all purposes as an appeal.
S. 13 of the 1995 Act provides the threshold conditions for the making of references under s.9:
" (1) A reference of a conviction ….shall not be made under any of sections 9….unless –
(a) the Commission consider that there is a real possibility that the conviction….would not be upheld were the reference to be made.
(b) the Commission so consider –
(i) in the case of a conviction….because of an argument, or evidence, not raised in the proceedings which led to it or on any appeal or application for leave to appeal against it….
(c) an appeal against the conviction….has been determined or leave to appeal against it has been refused."
The factual history may be briefly summarised:
i) On the 4 th April, 2012, the Claimant was involved in an incident at a London nightclub with Mr Phillip Sherriff. In the course of the incident, the Claimant struck Mr Sherriff in the neck with a bottle causing serious wounds and bleeding. On the 8 th April, Mr Sherriff died in hospital.
ii) In November 2012, the Claimant was tried for Mr Sherriff's murder at the Central Criminal Court, before HHJ Worsley and a jury. The Claimant's primary defence at trial was self-defence. If that defence was rejected, then the Claimant maintained that he never intended to cause really serious harm to Mr Sherriff, so that he was guilty of manslaughter rather than murder.
iii) On Friday 9 th November, 2012 and after lengthy jury deliberation, the Claimant was convicted of murder by a 11-1 majority. The Judge passed the mandatory sentence of life imprisonment with a minimum term of 14 years' imprisonment.
iv) The Claimant sought leave to appeal against conviction and sentence. The Single Judge refused leave to appeal against conviction and granted leave to appeal against sentence. On the 16 th December, 2013, the CACD dismissed the Claimant's renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction and dismissed his appeal against sentence. Giving the judgment of the Court, Jackson LJ observed that both the Claimant and Mr Sherriff ("the deceased") had been men of unblemished character, who had been strangers to one another until their chance meeting close to the bar at the nightclub. The whole incident had been a tragedy; the deceased lost his life and the Claimant had to serve the sentence imposed upon him.
v) Following an advice given by Mr Henry Blaxland QC, dated 21 st May, 2014 ("the Blaxland Advice"), on the 14 th December, 2014, the Claimant applied to the CCRC for his case to be referred to the CACD.
vi) As already recorded, on the 7 th April, 2016, the CCRC gave its Decision — refusing to refer the Claimant's case to the CACD.
vii) Thereafter, the CCRC treated the case as closed and further submissions from the Claimant were unavailing.
The Claimant challenges the Decision, contending that the CCRC acted unlawfully in deciding not to refer his case to the CACD. He contends that the CCRC misunderstood the law, first, on whether a submission of no case to answer should have been made at trial and would have been successful. Secondly, as to the proper legal approach to a Nedrick direction; no such direction was given at trial and the Claimant submits that it should have been given.
For his part, King J, giving permission on the basis that the Claimant's grounds were arguable, went on to add the following:
"These grounds raise also the arguable issue as to the approach of the court on a judicial review when a challenge is made to the Commission's decision not to refer, on the ground that it took a view of the substantive criminal law which was wrong. Does the court on a judicial review consider the legal position for itself or will it decline to interfere so long as the view taken by the Commission was a tenable one and not irrational?"
THE TRIAL AND THE APPEAL
For present purposes, various aspects of the trial merit noting. First, CCTV footage of the incident was played to the jury. We too have seen it and I deal later with the impression I formed from it.
Secondly, the Claimant placed considerable reliance on answers given in cross-examination by Dr Peter Jerreat, a forensic pathologist called by the Crown. On the footing that the bottle remained intact, the following question and answer are recorded:
"Q. ….. Is this fair, it is unlikely to cause a really serious injury if it is wielded against the face and it does not break?
A. Yes, I would agree."
If, however, the bottle was broken, it would require only fairly moderate force to cause the injury sustained by the deceased.
Thirdly, very experienced counsel then appearing for the Claimant, Mr Andrew Hall QC, did not advance a submission of no case to answer. He also did not seek a Nedrick direction.
Fourthly, I turn to the Summing-Up. Early on, the Judge stated that there was no dispute that the injury inflicted by the Claimant on the deceased caused his death. There was no suggestion that the blow had been accidental. The issue was:
"….whether at the time of the blow the defendant realised that he had the bottle in his hand which had in fact been broken? The defendant says he deliberately and instinctively swung his arm at Mr Sheriff, but says that he did not appreciate in that moment that he was holding the bottle, which seconds earlier he had grabbed from the hand of Mr Sheriff."
The Judge then dealt with the burden resting on the prosecution to prove that at the time of the attack, the Claimant intended to kill or to cause really serious harm to the deceased. The orthodox, simple direction was given.
There was no suggestion that the Claimant intended to kill the deceased; the Crown's case was that the Claimant had formed the intention to cause the deceased really serious harm. That was an intent sufficient for murder. The Claimant denied that he had any such intention.
The Judge went on to direct the jury in the following terms as to determining intention:
"Now a word about intent, how do you determine what is going on in a man's head, you cannot cut his head open and look inside?
You determine the defendant's intent by looking at all the surrounding circumstances as you find them to be, namely what the defendant did and said before, during and after that fatal blow, and what he reliably said to the police and the custody nurse later on.
And this is important in the context of this case; an intent does not have to be a long formed intent. It can be formed in a flash of temper or in a split second. It can immediately be regretted afterwards……"
Having reviewed the CCTV footage, the Judge turned to the "weapon" which caused the fatal injury by cutting the carotid artery. There was no dispute that the weapon was a Beck's bottle of beer:
"…which by the time it had struck Mr Sherriff's neck had been broken. No one has suggested precisely how it must have been broken, but you may think that it is common ground that by the time it went into his neck the bottle must have been broken in order to provide the very sharp jagged edge which in fact caused the injury….."
The Judge recorded the evidence of police officers who arrived at the nightclub, or to whom the Claimant spoke subsequently. PC Bradley handcuffed the Claimant and told him he was being arrested. The Claimant said to him:
"Yeah, I know. I bottled him. He retaliated me. I didn't mean to harm him. I'm sorry. Is he all right?"
The Claimant continued to talk about the incident as other officers arrived. PC Davies reminded the Claimant that he was under arrest and under caution but the Claimant continued, accepting responsibility and saying:
"I hit the guy with a glass. I felt intimidated so I just lashed out. I had a glass in my hand and it cut him, as I turned away he was bleeding from the head area. I no way intended to cause him that damage…."
The Claimant repeatedly expressed his regret and continued to ask about the deceased. PC Davies further recorded the Claimant saying this:
"….the man had been pushing past him; he had spoken to him and asked him to stop. He moved away slightly, but then the man pretended to use his mobile phone, and whilst doing this he was basically 'taking the mick' out of Mr Charles. This intimidated Mr Charles even more and he, Mr Chales, remembered slashing out at him and seeing lots of blood…."
Summarising the Claimant's case, the Judge underlined the Defence contention that the Claimant had not been shown to have...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R Michael George Lyons v Criminal Cases Review Commission
...power and the duty to judge which cases cross the threshold and which do not.” 5 In R (Charles) v Criminal Cases Review Commission [2017] EWHC 1219 (Admin) Gross LJ provided further clarification of the role to be performed by the CCRC: “65. The question is not straightforward. First, as a......
-
Bhadresh Babulal Gohil v R
...discussed, frequent reference has been made to the CCRC as an alternative remedy. As observed by Gross LJ in R (Charles) v CCRC [2017] EWHC 1219 (Admin); [2017] 2 Cr App R 14, at [2], the CCRC, established by the Criminal Appeal Act 1995 (“the 1995 Act”): “…now forms an integral part of the......
-
R (on the application of Norman Edward Gilfoyle) v Criminal Cases Review Commission
...[2001] EWHC (Admin) 1153 at para 14; R (on the application of Steele) v Commission [2015] EWHC 3724 Admin at para 19; and R (Charles) v Criminal Cases Review Commission [2017] EWHC 1219 (Admin) [2017] 2 Cr. App. R. 14. 29 In the latter case Gross LJ observed at para 47 that: "…though the de......
-
The Queen (on the Application of Anthony Davies) v The Criminal Cases Review Commission
...the Commission, and the approach of the Court to review of the Commission, was given by the Divisional Court in R (Charles) v CCRC [2017] EWHC 1219 (Admin), where Gross LJ said: “65. The question is not straightforward. First, as already seen, the exercise of the power to refer, including i......