Man’s murder conviction referred because ‘loss of control’ defence was not properly considered at trial

The Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) has referred a man’s murder conviction to the Court of Appeal because the partial defence of loss of control was not properly considered at his trial or put before the jury. 

Nicholas Curtis was convicted in April 2019, alongside his brother Stuart Curtis, of the murder of Glenda Jackson, who was killed outside her home in Birkenhead in the early hours of 30 September 2018.  

On the night of her death, Ms Jackson had reported to the police that she had been assaulted and subjected to homophobic abuse by a group associated with the Curtis brothers.  After the police had left, further confrontation took place. It was alleged that Ms Jackson attacked a van belonging to Nicholas Curtis with a hammer and knife before both brothers attacked her.  

The prosecution case was that Nicholas Curtis stabbed Ms Jackson five times while Stuart Curtis kicked and stamped on her head. Both men were arrested and charged with murder, which they denied. 

At trial, Nicholas Curtis argued that he had acted in self-defence when confronted by an angry aggressor armed with a knife who had intentionally damaged his van. His case was that Ms Jackson had lunged at him, stabbing him twice, and that she sustained fatal injuries in the ensuing struggle. 

The prosecution case was that, even if Ms Jackson had used unlawful force, the medical evidence showed that the response was a deliberate attack which went beyond reasonable self-defence. It argued that Ms Jackson was the victim of a joint attack by Nicholas and Stuart Curtis, motivated by retaliation. 

Both men were convicted of murder following a trial at Liverpool Crown Court. Nicholas Curtis was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 18 years. His attempts to appeal against his conviction were unsuccessful, and he applied to the CCRC in June 2024. 

Following a review, the CCRC has decided to refer Mr Curtis’s conviction to the Court of Appeal.  

The CCRC considers there is a real possibility that the Court of Appeal will find the conviction unsafe because it is not clear that the trial judge properly considered whether the jury should have been allowed to consider the partial defence of loss of control. There is no record of the judge’s reasoning on this issue. 

The CCRC also considers there is a real possibility that, had the issue been fully considered at the trial, loss of control would have been put to the jury. The CCRC considers there was sufficient evidence for the jury to decide whether the legal requirements for the defence were met. 

Loss of control was not raised by either the prosecution or the defence at trial and did not feature in Mr Curtis’s grounds of appeal. Had the defence been put to the jury as an alternative to self-defence, and had the jury accepted it, Mr Curtis would have been acquitted of murder and convicted of manslaughter instead. 

CCRC Chair Dame Vera Baird KC said: “The law requires all relevant defences to be properly considered when a person’s guilt is being decided.  

“Our review identified a significant issue around the partial defence of loss of control which was not raised at Mr Curtis’s trial or in his appeal. We consider there is a real possibility that the defence should have been put before the jury and, as a result, that the Court of Appeal may find the murder conviction unsafe. 

“We have referred the case so that the Court of Appeal can consider the issue and decide whether the conviction can safely stand.” 

[ENDS] 

Notes to editor: 

1. The CCRC is an independent body set up under the Criminal Appeal Act 1995. It is responsible for independently reviewing suspected and alleged miscarriages of criminal justice in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. It is based in Birmingham and is funded by the Ministry of Justice.     

2. There are currently 16 Commissioners who bring to the CCRC considerable experience from a wide variety of backgrounds. Commissioners are appointed by the monarch on the recommendation of the Prime Minister in accordance with the Office for the Commissioner for Public Appointments’ Code of Practice.  

3. The CCRC received more than 1,800 applications for reviews (convictions and/or sentences) last year. Since starting work in 1997, the CCRC has referred more than 900 cases to the appeal courts.       

4. The CCRC considers whether, as a result of new evidence or argument, there is a real possibility that the conviction would not be upheld were a reference to be made. New evidence or argument is argument or evidence which has not been raised during the trial or on appeal.  Applicants should usually have appealed first. A case can be referred in the absence of new evidence or argument or an earlier appeal only if there are “exceptional circumstances”.       

5. If a case is referred, it is then for the appeal court to decide whether the conviction is unsafe.     

6. More details about the role and work of the Criminal Cases Review Commission can be found at www.ccrc.gov.uk. The CCRC can be found on X, Facebook, Instagram (@the_ccrc) and Linkedin.