Background
Daryl Derek Richardson and Bobby Smith were convicted of murdering Muhammed Jassey, who was fatally stabbed in Brighton in April 2020. The prosecution could not prove which defendant inflicted the wound but alleged that they acted together. CCTV showed Richardson gesturing toward Jassey before the confrontation, following as Smith struggled with him, appearing to pat Jassey’s pockets, and fleeing with Smith. Text messages supported the prosecution’s case that Richardson had planned to rob a cannabis dealer. Richardson received life imprisonment with a minimum term of 25 years, less time served.
Years out of time, Richardson sought permission to appeal his conviction and sentence and to introduce fresh psychological, psychiatric, intermediary, and factual evidence. He argued that he should have had an intermediary at trial, that diminished responsibility should have been investigated, that the jury should have heard evidence about his ADHD and other conditions, that he had not been properly advised whether to testify, and that his minimum term was manifestly excessive.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal refused an extension of time, permission to introduce the proposed fresh evidence, and permission to appeal the conviction. It accepted that Richardson had ADHD and uneven cognitive abilities, including relatively weak verbal comprehension, but found that trial counsel had explained the proceedings and the decision whether to testify in language he understood. Counsel’s advice that he should not testify was reasonable, particularly because Richardson did not want to identify Smith, the prosecution case had developed favorably from the defence perspective, and Richardson risked performing poorly as a witness. The absence of an intermediary did not affect the conviction’s safety.
The court also held that trial counsel reasonably declined to pursue diminished responsibility. Although a defendant need not admit participation in a killing before invoking that partial defence, the available evidence did not establish that Richardson’s mental functioning was substantially impaired or explain his acts or omissions in the killing. Expert evidence about ADHD and related conditions would not have assisted the jury without relevant evidence about Richardson’s thought processes. Considering the grounds separately and cumulatively, the court was sure the conviction was safe.
Permission to appeal the sentence was also refused. The trial judge knew of Richardson’s ADHD, depression, and anxiety, but there was no evidence that they reduced his culpability. The finding that Richardson held the senior role was open on the evidence, including his robbery-related messages and gesture calling Jassey toward the defendants. The 25-year minimum term was therefore not manifestly excessive.
Key Takeaways
- A defendant may benefit from an intermediary without the intermediary being necessary to ensure effective participation or a safe conviction.
- Diminished responsibility does not legally require an admission of involvement, but ordinarily requires evidence connecting the defendant’s mental condition and thought processes to the acts or omissions constituting participation in the killing.
- Fresh psychiatric or psychological evidence will not justify an appeal unless it could materially bear on the issues tried and afford a ground for finding the conviction unsafe.
Why It Matters
The decision emphasizes that appellate courts examine the practical effect of a defendant’s communication difficulties rather than treating a later recommendation for intermediary assistance as proof that the trial was unfair. Clear explanations, appropriate breaks, and attentive representation may adequately accommodate a defendant’s needs.
It also illustrates the evidential limits of raising diminished responsibility or mental-condition evidence for the first time on appeal. A diagnosis alone is insufficient; the evidence must address the statutory requirements and connect the condition to the defendant’s responsibility for the killing.