[2025] EWCA Crim 1427

Upon referral to the full court by the Registrar of Criminal Appeals, the applicant applies for leave to appeal against both conviction and sentence and for extensions of time in which to do so. In the case of the application for leave to appeal against conviction, the extension of time sought is 635 days; in the case of the application for leave to appeal against sentence, the extension of time sought is 630 days.

The applicant also seeks leave to introduce fresh evidence in the form of psychiatric reports from Professor Inti Qurashi, as well as a statement from the applicant's mother, Angeline Madaweni, dated 27 December 2023, and a transcript of audio calls made by the applicant and recorded by his mother prior to the homicide.

On 15 February 2023, in the Crown Court at Derby, following a trial before His Honour Judge Egbuna and a jury, the applicant was convicted of murder. On 20 February 2023, he was sentenced to imprisonment for life. A period of 25 years was specified as the minimum term under section 322 of the Sentencing Act 2020 (less 197 days spent on remand).

The background facts, in summary, are that on the night of Saturday 6 August 2022, the deceased, Billy Pearson, had been out with friends and shortly before half past midnight became involved in an argument and then a fight with the applicant and others in the grounds of St Mary and All Saints Church, Chesterfield. Initially outnumbered, the applicant ran away. He returned home. It was the prosecution case that he then put on a pair of fingerless weightlifting gloves, collected a black balaclava, armed himself with two screwdrivers which he concealed in the back pocket of his jeans, and then set off back to the town centre looking for revenge. As he walked, he took off his T-shirt, tied it around his waist and put on the black balaclava. He ran to St Mary and All Saints Church. As Billy Pearson was walking through the churchyard, the applicant stabbed him in the left side of the head with one of the screwdrivers. The blow was delivered with such force that the screwdriver went straight through the side of his skull and into his brain. Billy Pearson collapsed instantly and died seven days later.

The applicant was detained by police a short time later. He was in a highly agitated state. He was restrained and handcuffed. He shouted: "They attacked me" and "(one of them) stabbed one of his own". The applicant claimed that he had been out for a jog and that he had done nothing wrong. He also denied that he had had a weapon. The police conducted a quick search of the area and found the discarded balaclava and screwdrivers. The applicant was arrested on suspicion of inflicting grievous bodily harm. Following caution, he stated: "Can I say my story? They tried to stab me with two screwdrivers and I grabbed one off him, yeah".

The applicant was taken to the police station. During the booking-in process he told the custody officers: "They were poking. They [had] two screwdrivers. And they actually tried to stab me with it. Luckily enough he stabbed himself. I remember. I remember. I remember".

The applicant was interviewed on 7 August 2022. Present were a legal representative and an appropriate adult. His account was that he had come upon two men and two women, who were drunk, in the churchyard. They seemed to be under the impression that he was a drug dealer and asked him whether he had anything on him. One of the men (the deceased) produced two screwdrivers and "poked" the applicant in the stomach with them while the second man stood behind the applicant preventing him from leaving. The applicant disarmed the man with the two screwdrivers and threw one away. One of the women then "bashed" him in the face, so he pushed her back. The deceased had picked up the discarded screwdriver and the two men pulled the applicant to the ground and kicked and punched him. The applicant managed to get away but the men assaulted him once more outside a bar. The applicant got away and returned to his flat.

He realised one of his phones was missing and so he decided to return to the town centre to retrieve it. He put on weightlifting gloves and a balaclava "… so they don't see me…". He still had the screwdriver in his pocket. On his way back to the town centre, he was assaulted by another group of men who had held him by his T-shirt and so he had taken it off.

He had returned to St Mary and All Saints Church and taken the screwdriver out of his pocket, as he suggested (rather implausibly), to return it to the two men who had attacked him. In the churchyard, he bumped into the man from the earlier altercation (the deceased). That man had been laughing and calling out, "Yo! The Feds is coming. The Feds is coming". The deceased had shouted to his friends, "He's here! He's here!" and the friends had shouted, "We've got him! We've got him!" The applicant said that he punched the deceased with his right hand, which was the hand in which he was holding the screwdriver. He accepted that he aimed the punch at the man's head, but claimed that he had not meant to punch the man to start a fight. He also claimed that he had not meant to hurt the man he struck. He thought he had "landed [the blow] with [his] knuckles" and that he had not realised that "what [he] had in [his] hands (the screwdriver) had actually caught him as well". He thought that the man was just drunk when he fell to the ground.

At trial, the defence case was that the applicant had acted in lawful self-defence and that he had not intended to kill the deceased or to cause him serious harm.

The applicant gave evidence. He said that he was on prescription drugs for depression, anxiety and insomnia. He kept himself fit by shadowboxing, weights and running. On the night in question, he was going to the town hall where he usually shadowboxed. He had come across the group in the churchyard and they asked him if he had any cocaine. One of the females of the group accused him of selling fake drugs to one of her friends. Things became heated. The deceased "poked" the applicant with two screwdrivers which the deceased had taken from his shorts. The deceased said, "We are gonna stab you". The applicant managed to take possession of the two screwdrivers. Punches were exchanged and the applicant was kicked while he was on the ground. The applicant got away and returned home. There was blood on his hands, jeans and the screwdriver. He realised that he had dropped his phone and cash, and so decided to go back to the churchyard to look for them. He took the balaclava with him to put fear in the same individuals who had beaten him up. The screwdrivers were in his pocket.

Once in the churchyard, he recognised the deceased as the person who had beaten him up before. He panicked and hit the deceased because he was not willing to be beaten up again. He believed that if he did not hit the deceased, the rest of the group would have joined in to beat him up. He did not intend to hit him with the screwdriver in his hand. He then ran because he did not want to get beaten up. He did not realise that the deceased had suffered a traumatic injury.

The applicant confirmed that the reference he had made in his police interview to taking one screwdriver off the group was a mistake. He said that he was in a state of shock at the time.

The basis for the application for leave to appeal against conviction is that the reports of Dr Qurashi provide compelling evidence that the defence of diminished responsibility was available to the applicant at trial and would have been likely to have succeeded. However, the pre-trial investigations into the applicant's mental health history were inadequate; no psychiatric evidence was relied upon at trial; and no defence of diminished responsibility was raised. It is principally in order to adduce the evidence of Dr Qurashi that the application for leaver to adduce fresh evidence is made.

The basis for the application for leave to appeal against sentence is that if the murder conviction remains, the minimum term should be reduced significantly to take into account the impact of the applicant's disordered mental state at the time of the killing and the consequent reduction in his culpability. No psychiatric evidence was relied on at the sentencing hearing.

The extensions of time are sought on the basis that, following his conviction and sentence, the applicant's family contacted present counsel and expressed concern that the applicant's disordered mental state had not been adequately investigated for the purposes of the trial and that since his sentence it had deteriorated significantly. Thereafter, steps were taken to obtain material relating to the applicant's mental health history and to instruct an expert to assess him and to prepare the psychiatric reports.

As a result of the applicant's severely disordered mental state post trial, his change of legal representation (arranged by his family), the investigations carried out by the new solicitors, the need to instruct and obtain the opinion of Dr Qurashi, and the difficulties in arranging visits to Whitemoor Prison to enable the psychiatric assessment to be completed, there has been an unavoidable significant delay in seeking leave to appeal, none of which is the applicant's fault and all of which is explainable by reference to the above steps which have needed to be taken.

Despite the considerable and significant delay, we have taken the view that if there is such merit it the appeal that leave to appeal should be granted, the applicant should in all the circumstances, including the nature of the offence and the length of the term of imprisonment, be given the necessary extensions of time in order to do so. Thus, the applications for extensions of time should, in our judgment, be wholly dependent on the merits of the applications for leave to appeal, to which we now turn.