This transcript is Crown Copyright. It may not be reproduced in whole or in part other than in accordance with relevant licence or with the express consent of the Authority. All rights are reserved.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION
Between
R E XCrown
London
WC2A 2LL
ON APPEAL FROM THE CROWN COURT AT GUILDFORD
(HIS HONOUR JUDGE DUNNE KC) [45EP0191824]
Case No 2025/02469/A1
Neutral Citation Number: [2026] EWCA Crim 935
Friday 19 June 2026
B e f o r e:
THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF APPEAL CRIMINAL DIVISION
LORD JUSTICE EDIS
MR JUSTICE CHOUDHURY
MS JUSTICE NORTON DBE
____________________
- v -
Between
DARREN HANSON____________________Computer Aided Transcription of Epiq Europe Ltd,Lower Ground Floor, 46 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1JETel No: 020 7404 1400; Email: rcj@epiqglobal.co.uk (Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)____________________Mr R Johnson KC appeared for AppellantMr R Ritcher appeared for Crown____________________J U D G M E N TApprovedDate 2026-06-19
[1]On 17 June 2025, following a trial in the Crown Court at Guildford before His Honour Judge Donne KC and a jury, the appellant (then aged 46) was convicted of the murder of Jason Lucas, who was aged 47. The appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment, with a minimum term of 19 years (less 495 days spent on remand).[2]He now appeals against sentence with the leave of the single judge.
The Factual Background
[3]At around 5.25 pm on 7 February 2024, Mr Lucas arrived at the appellant's flat. Approximately half an hour later Mr Lucas collected some cocaine from a courier, as arranged by the appellant.[4]Later that day, at 7.52 pm, the appellant was seen at a local newsagent with blood on his T-shirt. By that time Mr Lucas was already either dead or was dying, the appellant having inflicted severe blunt force injuries upon him. The appellant went to Epsom for cigarettes, before returning to his flat where Mr Lucas was unresponsive inside. The appellant placed Mr Lucas on the bed and telephoned for an ambulance at 8.42 pm. The appellant performed CPR on Mr Lucas as directed by the emergency services call handler. Paramedics arrived soon afterwards and found Mr Lucas unresponsive with "unrecognisable" injuries to his face. Attempts to resuscitate him were unsuccessful and Mr Lucas was sadly pronounced dead 35 minutes later.[5]The pathologist evidence was that Mr Lucas had sustained significant abrasions and full thickness lacerations to the face, associated with smashed fractures of the facial skeleton which had destroyed the facial contours and resulted in concavity of the face. The judge described these injuries as Mr Lucas' face having been "quite literally smashed in". Teeth and blood had been inhaled and swallowed. There was a depressed, circular fracture to the right temple, associated with underlying bruising and brain damage. No weapon was found at the scene. The injuries were consistent with Mr Lucas' head being driven against a doorstop with a kick to the left side of the face. There had been a minimum of ten impacts to the head and face with severe force. The fractures were likely to have been caused by kicking or stamping with a shod foot.[6]Upon examination of Mr Lucas' brain, there was found to be bruising consistent with the depressed fracture, bruising in the central part of the brain, and a grade 2 diffuse axonal injury. Such types of injuries were commonly found in road traffic collisions and assaults. The survival time following such brain injuries was approximately 30 minutes, with the victim likely unconscious for most of that time. The facial fractures would have compromised Mr Lucas' airway due to the instability of the facial skeleton; and the inhalation of blood would be much more likely if unconscious. The cause of death was said to be cranio-facial injuries and associated complications.[7]There were three distinct areas of bloodstaining: on the wall immediately outside the flat; immediately inside the door; and a little further into the hallway, where the paramedics had worked on Mr Lucas. The staining on the wall outside contained several of Mr Lucas' hairs, consistent with his head having been struck against the wall.[8]When police attended, the appellant told them he had knocked Mr Lucas out. Upon his arrest the appellant said to the officers:
"What about him hitting me?"
He also said that it was "terrible", and that he was "sorry for the young man's life". While being booked into custody the appellant was asked if he had any injuries. He pointed to his right elbow and said: "Where I hit him", and then demonstrated an elbow strike.[9]In his police interview the appellant gave a prepared statement in which he said that he had consumed five cans of high strength cider and had smoked crack cocaine. The appellant said that there had been an altercation with Mr Lucas near the front door of the flat and that he was devastated by his death.[10]At trial the appellant claimed to have acted in self-defence. He accused Mr Lucas of being a habitual knife carrier who had threatened to stab the appellant over a dispute about cocaine. The appellant told the jury that the threat caused him to deliver five or six rapid blows to Mr Lucas' face whilst he was in the hallway. The appellant denied being responsible for the depressed skull fracture, or the impact of Lucas' head with the wall outside the flat. The pathologists dismissed the explanation that elbow strikes could have caused the facial injuries.[11]The judge found that the appellant had delivered at least one elbow strike to Mr Lucas outside the flat, causing him to slump to a low level while another blow caused his head to hit the wall. The attack continued inside the hallway and involved kicking and stamping, with Mr Lucas' head being kicked against the doorstop. The appellant then rifled through Mr Lucas' pockets and wallet before putting him on his bed and leaving the flat.
The Sentencing Remarks
[12]The judge correctly imposed a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment. In accordance with section 322 of the Sentencing Act 2020, he proceeded to set a minimum term having regard to Schedule 21 to that Act. He rejected a submission by the prosecution that this was a murder for gain, concluding that it was more likely that the attack was the result of an argument following the consumption of alcohol and crack cocaine. It follows that the appropriate minimum term was that contained in paragraph 5 of Schedule 21, namely 15 years.[13]The judge then identified the aggravating and mitigating features of the offence. He noted that none of the statutory aggravating features in Schedule 21(9) was present. The statutory aggravating feature at subparagraph (f)(a) – "Sustained and excessive violence towards the victim" could not be counted, not because the violence did not meet that description, but because that subparagraph was not in force at the time the offence was committed. However, the judge did take account of the level of violence used as a non-statutory aggravating feature, as he was entitled to do. He said that the attack on Mr Lucas was "truly brutal". Other non-statutory aggravating factors identified were the appellant's previous convictions, including a domestic violence assault in 2008 on his then partner, although the judge noted that that was some 16 years ago and was very different in character and degree; the use of a shod foot to kick and/or stamp on the victim; and the fact that the appellant was intoxicated, which the Judge considered "significant".[14]The judge then considered the statutory mitigating factors under Schedule 21(10). He concluded that there was an intention to cause serious bodily harm rather than to kill. Whilst there was undoubtedly a sustained and violent attack, the judge could not be sure to the criminal standard that there was an intention to kill. He noted that the level of intoxication would have affected the appellant's judgment and that he did eventually call for an ambulance and perform CPR as directed. Secondly, the judge found that there was a lack of premeditation in that the appellant did not set out that day to cause Mr Lucas serious bodily harm but formed that intention having decided to attack him. As to non-statutory personal mitigation, the judge noted that the appellant had tried to free himself of his addictions, although he had relapsed shortly before the attack; and he had used his time in custody well, being drug free for some 16 months.[15]Taking account of these factors, the judge concluded that the there should be an increase from the minimum term to 19 years.
The Grounds of Appeal and Submissions
[16]The grounds of appeal raise no issue with the starting point of 15 years, or with the identification of the aggravating and mitigating factors. It is not suggested, for example, that the judge failed to identify a mitigating factor or that he wrongly counted an aggravating factor. Instead, the grounds raise a single, short point: that is that the judge attached excessive weight to the aggravating factors and/or failed to attach sufficient weight to the mitigating factors, resulting in a minimum term that was manifestly excessive. Mr Johnson KC, who appears on behalf of the appellant (as he did below) emphasises that this was not a planned killing, that the appellant did not intend to kill, and that the spontaneous and brief violence arose in the context of drug use and an altercation. He further submits that the appellant's previous convictions were old, that he had made genuine efforts at rehabilitation, that there were strong character references, and that the mitigation overall required a greater reduction.[17]On behalf of the Crown, Mr Richter submits that the judge properly considered and balanced the aggravating and mitigating factors and reached an overall minimum term that accurately reflected all the features of the case.
Discussion and Decision
[18]The weighing of aggravating and mitigating factors is not an arithmetical exercise: the mere fact that a similar number of factors is identified on each side does not necessarily mean that they must balance out. The weight that is to be attached to the individual factors will be highly dependent on the particular facts of the case; and the decision as to where the overall balance of the factors lies, whether they should result in an increase or decrease from the starting point, and by how much, are all very much matters of judgment for the sentencing judge.[19]In this case, it may be inferred that the judge attached considerable weight to one or more of the aggravating factors identified. Given the brutal and sustained nature of the attack, the judge would be entitled to attach substantial weight to that feature. The injuries to Mr Lucas' head and face were catastrophic. The evidence established a minimum of ten severe impacts. The attack included kicks with a shod foot to the head and face. The victim's facial skeleton was smashed. His airway was compromised by the injuries and by inhaled blood. The attack continued across more than one location, outside and then inside the flat. Similarly, it was open to the judge in the circumstances of this case to consider that intoxication was a significant factor, given the level of intoxication (to the point of experiencing blackouts and memory loss), his long-standing addiction, and the known effect that intoxication had on his character. Although the previous convictions were dated and acknowledged to be very different in character and degree from the offending with which we are concerned, they were not irrelevant. The judge was entitled to regard them as part of the overall picture whilst attaching modest weight to them.[20]As to the mitigating factors, the lack of an intention to kill and the lack of premeditation were significant, and the personal mitigation advanced carried some weight. However, those factors do not necessarily mean that the uplift of four years was manifestly excessive, when set against the aggravating factors. Given the brutal and sustained nature of the attack, the lack of intent and premeditation may be regarded as less weighty matters in the circumstances of this case.[21]We remind ourselves of what is said in Schedule 21(8) to the 2020 Act:
"Detailed consideration of aggravating and mitigating factors may result in a minimum term of any length (whatever the starting point)…"
[22]Viewing the matter in the round, the uplift of four years from the starting point was undoubtedly very substantial, but it was not, in our judgment, outside the range reasonably open to the sentencing judge. The final sentence reflected the severity of the attack, its duration, the repeated severe force used against a vulnerable part of the body (the face, mouth and nose), the use of a shod foot, the appellant's intoxication and the appellant's post-offence conduct. Whilst the latter was not a specified aggravating factor, it was a relevant consideration in assessing the seriousness of the offending as a whole. The mitigation was significant, but it did not compel a lower minimum term. A minimum term of 19 years was severe but cannot be said to be manifestly excessive.[23]For those reasons, this appeal against sentence is dismissed. The sentence of imprisonment for life with a minimum term of 19 years (less 495 days) remains. That equates to 17 years and 235 days. _________________________________ Epiq Europe Ltd hereby certify that the above is an accurate and complete record of the proceedings or part thereof. Lower Ground Floor, 46 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1JE Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Email: rcj@epiqglobal.co.uk ______________________________