R v Leon Murray

On 31 May 2024, in the Crown Court at Wood Green, the applicant, Leon Murray, who was then aged 35, was convicted of Murder. He had previously entered a guilty plea to the lesser alternative of Manslaughter on 8 May 2024, which had not been accepted by the prosecution. On 3 June 2024, HHJ John Dodd KC, who was the trial judge, sentenced the applicant to Imprisonment for Life, with a minimum term under section 322 of the Sentencing Act 2020, of 20 years less 578 days served on remand. The judge imposed No Separate Penalty in respect of the Manslaughter. We shall return to that disposal later. The applicant’s leave to appeal application in respect of his sentence was refused by the single judge and is now renewed before this Court.

The facts of this murder may be stated concisely for the purposes of this renewed application. The applicant and the deceased had been in a long-term relationship over 13 years, having had three children together. Towards the end of the relationship the deceased had made it clear that she wished to end it but on previous occasions when she had said this they had been reconciled.

On 31 October, the deceased told the applicant for the final time that the relationship was over. During that night the applicant held long telephone conversation with his half-sister during which he had informed her of his intention to kill the deceased. Attempts to dissuade him were unsuccessful and the call made to the deceased by the sister did not persuade her of the risk to her life.

On 1 November, the applicant went to the home of the deceased which they had shared with the children. The older two children were elsewhere but the youngest was in a cot in the bedroom. The applicant had arranged with the deceased that he would attend the home in order to recover his belongings. Whilst inside the home an argument developed. The applicant picked up a kitchen knife which he used to stab the deceased 17 times. There was evidence of defensive wounds on the deceased indicating that there was a struggle. She bled to death in the sitting room whilst the youngest child was in that bedroom.

After killing the deceased, the applicant changed out of his bloodstained clothes and took the baby to the school where one of the other children was being cared for. He called the eldest child and directed him away from the home. The applicant himself called the emergency services and reported that he had killed the deceased. After arrest he gave “no comment” in interview.

Shortly before the trial the applicant pleaded guilty to manslaughter as a lesser alternative to the charge of murder. It was the applicant’s case that he had been the subject of an attack or threat by the deceased, who had picked up a kitchen knife and had taunted him whilst he acted with a mental disorder sufficient to diminish his responsibility for the killing. He called medical evidence in support of a partial defence. The prosecution also called medical evidence to rebut the contention of diminished responsibility. The Jury convicted the applicant of murder rejecting his evidence and the partial defence.

In sentencing the applicant, the judge concluded that the Starting Point for the minimum term for custody, to be served with a sentence of imprisonment for life was 15 years. The offence was aggravated in its seriousness by the fact that it was within the family home of the deceased, in a domestic context, there was evidence of planning or premeditation from conversation he had with his sister. This was a sustained attack with a knife involving 17 wounds. The presence of the very young child which, at the very least, would have increased the distress suffered by the deceased during the attack.

When the judge considered the mitigating factors, taking into account that the applicant was effectively of good character, the judge concluded that there was little, if any evidence of genuine remorse, reducing the significance of this factor. The judge considered carefully the evidence heard during the trial, concerning the applicant’s established complex PTSD, being the result of significant sexual abuse he had suffered when he was a child. The judge took into account the relevant guidelines, including sentencing offenders with mental disorders, development disorders or neurological impairments. The judge was required to assess whether the applicant’s complex PTSD with traits of autism formed a sufficient connection between his offending and his mental disability. The judge stated:

“I am satisfied that your decision to kill her had nothing to do with any of the challenges that you have faced in your life as a result of the abuse you received as a child. Nor had your decision anything to do with any of your behavioural traits...

I have given the significance of your mental health careful thought. Having done that, I consider that the seriousness of your offence is not mitigated by the presence of certain mental health issues in your life, and certainly those matters in my judgment do not reduce the seriousness of your offence.”

Further, the judge accepted the applicant had indicated earlier in the proceedings that he accepted causing the death of the deceased. However, it was observed that he had given an account of the deceased’s attack upon him which had been rejected by the jury as had his partial defence of diminished responsibility. The judge then imposed a 20-year minimum term for the murder conviction less time served on remand.

The grounds of appeal advanced on behalf of the applicant are that the judge failed to take into account sufficiently or at all the applicant’s mental health disability, his earlier admission of the killing and his effectively good character in order to mitigate the minimum term below that which was imposed. On behalf of the applicant Mr Kivdeh, for whose submissions we are grateful, argues that there was strong mitigation available to the applicant. He was a good father to the three children, his killing was out of character, he had not been violent within the relationship previously, he had traits of autism together with complex PTSD which might offer some explanation for this offence. Further, Mr Kivdeh also argues that there was no evidence of significant premeditation for this murder.

In the Respondent’s Note the prosecution submit that the judge was well placed to assess the medical evidence and its effect upon sentence. Having listened to the evidence during the course of the trial, which included oral evidence from the respective expert witnesses for both the prosecution and the defence. The conclusion drawn by the judge that the applicant’s mental disability was not relevant to the offending was a decision which was open to the judge to make on the evidence that he heard. The prosecution submit that the minimum term imposed given the aggravating features of seriousness, whilst balanced to a limited extent to those mitigated was well within the reasonable range of sentencing. Mr Rasiah KC confirmed those submissions by his presence today.

We have considered the merits of this renewed application for ourselves and have come to the same conclusion as the Single Judge. That the decision made on the evidence was open to the judge and cannot be criticised as either wrong or unreasonable. This was a serious and violent attack upon the applicant’s partner involving 17 wounds with the use of a knife. The aggravating factors of seriousness included clear evidence of significant premeditation and merited a substantial increase from the starting point of 15 years. Those factors mitigated were of much less weight. The conclusion of the judge that the minimum term must be 20 years before allowing for time served on remand cannot be faulted. The appeal against sentence is not, in our judgment, arguable and leave must be refused.

Finally, we are invited to correct the disposal for Count 2 manslaughter in respect of which the Registrar has alerted the parties and the Court to an error made. The appropriate disposal should not have been no separate penalty but for the offence of manslaughter to lie on the file on the usual terms. Authority for this can be found in the decision of this Court in R v Butler [2023] EWCA Crim 676. Accordingly, we quash the disposal of no separate penalty and in its place direct that Count 2 shall lie on the file not to be proceeded with without leave of this Court. The sentence on Count 1 (murder) remains Imprisonment for Life with a minimum term of 20 years less 578 days served on remand which is 18 years and 152 days. Save to that extent, this renewed application for leave to appeal sentence is refused.