The Court of Appeal has dismissed Roy Webster’s appeal against his murder conviction for the killing of Anne Shorthall, finding that the trial judge’s directions to the jury were appropriate.
Webster was convicted of murder in March 2017 after pleading not guilty to murder but guilty to manslaughter. He appealed on the grounds that the trial judge had inadequately explained both provocation, a partial defence to murder, and the mental element required for a murder conviction.
The appeal focused on the jury’s choice between murder and manslaughter. Webster’s new legal team argued that the jury should have been told there was a further route to manslaughter: that a total loss of control could leave a person incapable of forming any intention to kill or cause serious injury. The Court of Appeal said the judge had made the central point clear: if the prosecution failed to prove the required intent, the unlawful killing would amount to manslaughter, whatever the reason for that failure.
The trial judge also told the jury that provocation could reduce murder to manslaughter even where an intention to kill or cause serious injury had been formed. He described the requirements as a sudden and unforeseen onset of passion that totally deprived the accused of self-control, and said the prosecution had to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Webster was not provoked. He directed the jury to consider Webster’s state of mind subjectively, while allowing what a reasonable person might think to be one tool in assessing it.
The appeal court was not persuaded that the directions were flawed. It said the trial judge had carefully addressed the relevant appellate decisions and that the charge was focused and appropriate in all respects. The court therefore dismissed the appeal against conviction. The judgment concerns the conviction appeal; it does not report a new trial or alter the conviction.