Mark Eldridge and Lydia Stephens defend client charged with murder

In July 2024, Mark Eldridge and Lydia Stephens were instructed to defend an 80-year-old client (‘D’), who had been charged with the murder of his wife.

D and his wife had been happily married for many years, raising three sons together. However, by late 2023 into early 2024, D’s wife had become very unwell and was diagnosed with dementia.

D became his wife’s sole carer and struggled to cope, putting his own needs above the needs of others. D’s wife was hospitalised. Shortly after her discharge from hospital, D strangled his wife to death. D had never previously offended and this behaviour was entirely out of character.

Immediately following instruction, Mark secured bail for D before the Recorder of London at the Central Criminal Court. At the initial PTPH hearing, following Mark’s submissions, the court ordered an initial psychiatric report. On Mark’s advice, the Defence secured a second psychiatric report. The Crown also obtained their own psychiatric evidence.

All three psychiatrists agreed that, at the time of the killing, D had been suffering from an abnormality of mental functioning arising from a depressive episode.

Following discussions with the Defence, the Crown accepted a plea of manslaughter by means of diminished responsibility and the trial was vacated. At this stage, despite pleading to the lesser offence, D still faced a significant period of imprisonment.

The Crown’s sentencing note put the case somewhere towards the bottom of ‘medium’ responsibility retained (which has a starting point of 10 years) or towards the top of lower responsibility retained (which has a starting point of 7 years and a range of 3-12 years).

The defence, however, making extensive reference not only to the expert medical evidence but also to the most relevant case law, argued that D’s case was one of lower culpability. The distinct and specific circumstances of the killing mean that this was a case where the court could exercise its discretion and depart from the starting point.

Mark submitted that, taking into account credit for a guilty plea and D’s significant mitigation, the court could properly pass a sentence of two years, which would be capable of suspension. A similar approach had been followed in comparable cases.

At sentence, the Crown submitted that immediate custody was the proper and inevitable sentence. However, HHJ Lodder at Kingston Crown Court was ultimately persuaded by Mark’s submissions, sentencing D to a two-year suspended sentence.

Mark and Lydia were instructed by Errol Hamlin at A-Z Law.