R v Saunders

Factual and Procedural Background

On 11 July 2009, a street fight occurred in Jaywick, Essex involving four individuals: Laurence Wheatley, his brother Graham Wheatley, Jason Bethell, and John Smith. The fight was linked to the acrimonious end of a relationship between John Smith and his girlfriend, Deanna McKee. Following the breakup, Deanna McKee asked Laurence Wheatley to point CCTV cameras at her house for protection. John Smith, suspecting an affair, threatened violence. On 10 July, Laurence Wheatley was assaulted by John Smith when attempting to talk to him. The next day, John Smith was attacked by some or all of Laurence Wheatley, Graham Wheatley, and Jason Bethell, sustaining fatal injuries from stabbing, punching, kicking, and being hit by a car driven by Graham Wheatley. Laurence Wheatley was also stabbed during the fight.

The Appellant was the driver of a car carrying Laurence Wheatley and others to the scene. All four were charged with the murder of John Smith, with the prosecution alleging a joint enterprise to cause serious harm. The Appellant faced an alternative charge of assisting an offender under section 4(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1967, specifically assisting Laurence Wheatley to leave the scene knowing or believing he had committed an arrestable offence (attempted murder).

At trial before HHJ Ball QC and a jury at the Crown Court at Chelmsford, Laurence Wheatley, Graham Wheatley, Jason Bethell, and the Appellant were acquitted of murder. Graham Wheatley was convicted of attempting to cause grievous bodily harm with intent. The jury convicted the Appellant of assisting an offender by acting as a getaway driver for Laurence Wheatley after the fight. The Appellant appealed against this conviction.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the judge erred in leaving the count of assisting an offender to the jury after the principal offender, Laurence Wheatley, was acquitted of murder.
2. Whether the judge failed properly to direct the jury on what the prosecution had to prove regarding the offence committed by Laurence Wheatley before the Appellant could be convicted of assisting an offender.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The judge wrongly allowed the jury to consider the assisting an offender charge despite Laurence Wheatley's acquittal on murder.
• The judge failed to properly direct the jury on the necessary elements of the offence that Laurence Wheatley had committed for the assisting offence, particularly failing to instruct on the need to be sure that Laurence Wheatley had not acted in self-defence.
• Once the jury acquitted Laurence Wheatley and the Appellant of murder and requested further legal directions on the assisting offence, the judge should have given more detailed directions, including on self-defence.

Crown's Arguments

• The judge was obliged to direct the jury on the ingredients of the relevant offences Laurence Wheatley was alleged to have committed for the purposes of the assisting charge.
• Although the judge did not give a full direction on grievous bodily harm with intent or self-defence specifically in relation to the assisting offence, the jury had received full directions on unlawful violence and self-defence in relation to the murder charge, which would have sufficiently informed their consideration of the assisting charge.
• The further directions given after the acquittals were sufficient for the jury to properly assess the assisting offence.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analysed the statutory framework of section 4(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1967, as amended, which requires proof that the principal offender committed a "relevant offence," that the assister knew or believed this, that the assister acted with intent to impede apprehension or prosecution, and that the act was without lawful authority or reasonable excuse.

The indictment named Laurence Wheatley as the principal offender who committed the attempted murder of John Smith, but also allowed for proof of another relevant offence, such as inflicting grievous bodily harm with intent. The court held that the acquittal of Laurence Wheatley for murder did not preclude the jury from considering whether he committed another relevant offence for the assisting charge.

However, the court found that the trial judge failed to adequately direct the jury on the legal elements of the relevant offences Laurence Wheatley was alleged to have committed for the purposes of the assisting charge. Specifically, the judge did not instruct the jury that they had to be sure that Laurence Wheatley had not acted in self-defence before concluding that he committed the relevant offence. This omission was critical because self-defence was a live issue on the murder charge and could equally affect the determination of the relevant offence underlying the assisting charge.

The court concluded that the jury were not sufficiently directed on the ingredients of the offence alleged against Laurence Wheatley for the assisting charge, rendering the Appellant's conviction unsafe.

Holding and Implications

The court ALLOWED THE APPEAL and QUASHED THE CONVICTION of the Appellant on the charge of assisting an offender under section 4(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1967.

No application for a retrial was made. The decision directly affects the Appellant by overturning her conviction. The court did not establish any new precedent beyond clarifying the necessity for proper jury directions on the elements of the relevant offence, including self-defence, when considering assisting an offender charges where the principal offender has been acquitted of the primary offence.