Daicov [2019] EWCA Crim 84

The appellant was acquitted of murder and convicted of manslaughter by loss of control, he was sentenced to an extended sentence of 17 years, comprising a custodial term of 12 years and an extended licence period of 5 years. He appealed against sentence on the ground that the finding of dangerousness was wrong as it was based on the circumstances of the offence itself and that the judge was wrong to regard the qualifying trigger of loss of control as “short-lived and of low measure”.

Th appellant had been out and met a prostitute, an agreement was reached for sex to take place, and they went into an alley together. The deceased followed them and confronted the appellant, the prostitute ran off. The appellant reacted by attacking the deceased, punching him to the ground and kicking and stamping on his head. 

The appellant’s case was that the deceased and prostitute were acting in concert with a view to ambushing him, he believed he was under attack and would suffer serious violence from the deceased. The prosecution did not accept there had been such a set-up suggesting the deceased had entered the alley as a voyeur or to engage in sexual activity with the prostitute himself. The judge concluded that the appellant was in fear of serious violence but not that this was a pre-planned robbery.

Held: the judge was entitled to form the view that the appellant was dangerous. He was faithful to the verdict of the jury and identified other factors which justified the finding. The qualifying trigger took place over a very short period and it was for the judge to assess how that should be characterised, he was entitled to reach the conclusion that he did. The appeal was dismissed.