R v Banfield & Anor

Factual and Procedural Background

On 22 December 2011, the Appellants pleaded guilty to conspiracy to defraud, forgery, and conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, with one Appellant also pleading guilty to dishonestly retaining a wrongful credit. On 3 April 2012, both Appellants were convicted of the murder of the deceased. Sentences of life imprisonment were imposed with minimum terms of 18 and 16 years respectively. The appeals concern these murder convictions.

The deceased was last independently seen alive on 11 May 2001, having co-signed a contract for the sale of the family home. He disappeared shortly thereafter and his body has never been found. Evidence showed a turbulent marriage and financial complications including pension withdrawals and property sale. The Crown alleged the Appellants murdered the deceased between 11 and 16 May 2001, while the defence contended that absence of a body and direct evidence meant the Crown could not prove death or murder, suggesting the disappearance was voluntary.

The Appellants admitted to financial crimes motivated by gain and attempts to regularise the property sale but denied involvement in murder. The Crown relied on evidence of assaults on the deceased prior to disappearance, forged pension documents, false statements about sightings of the deceased after his disappearance, and joint financial benefits. The defence presented explanations of the deceased’s history of disappearance, depression, and denied violent acts.

Procedurally, the Appellants appealed against their murder convictions, challenging whether the Crown had proven joint responsibility for the killing beyond reasonable doubt.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Crown had established beyond reasonable doubt that both Appellants acted jointly in committing the murder of the deceased.
2. Whether the evidence was sufficient to exclude the possibility that only one Appellant was responsible for the murder.
3. Whether the trial judge erred in leaving the case to the jury on the basis of joint enterprise when the Crown could not prove presence or participation of both Appellants at the fatal act.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellants' Arguments

• The Crown failed to prove which Appellant was responsible for the murder or that both acted jointly.
• The evidence was consistent with one Appellant acting alone, thus failing to establish joint enterprise.
• Presence of both at the time of the killing was not proven, so the Crown could not rely on joint responsibility.
• Reliance on pre- and post-mortem joint activities did not prove concerted action in the murder itself.
• Given the indictment did not plead conspiracy to murder, the Crown’s case was limited to a simple joint enterprise which it could not prove.

Crown's Arguments

• Substantial evidence showed the Appellants acted together in assaults on the deceased, forging pension documents, and maintaining falsehoods to benefit financially.
• The joint conduct before and after disappearance demonstrated a premeditated joint enterprise to murder.
• Both Appellants’ lies and deception were common and indicative of joint involvement.
• The Crown contended that the evidence was sufficient for a jury to infer joint responsibility.
• One Appellant alone would have found it difficult to kill the deceased, supporting the joint enterprise theory.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analysed the sufficiency of the evidence to support a joint enterprise murder conviction in the absence of a body, a clear time and place of death, and a known mechanism of death. It acknowledged the Crown’s evidence of joint assaults, forged pension documents, financial benefit, and false statements but found these insufficient to prove that both Appellants were present and acting together at the time of the fatal attack.

The court emphasised the legal requirement that to convict both on a joint enterprise basis, the Crown must prove beyond reasonable doubt that both were involved in the killing or present encouraging the fatal act. The mere possibility that either Appellant could have committed the murder alone, without proof of joint action, undermined the Crown’s case.

The court distinguished between evidence of motive, opportunity, and post-mortem deception, which could raise suspicion, and the necessity of proof of joint participation in the killing itself. It found the Crown’s failure to plead conspiracy to murder further limited its case and left open multiple plausible scenarios inconsistent with joint enterprise.

Applying established legal principles and precedents, the court concluded that the evidence did not establish a prima facie case of joint enterprise murder against either Appellant, requiring the allowance of the submission of no case to answer.

Holding and Implications

The appeals are allowed and both murder convictions are quashed.

The direct effect of this decision is the acquittal of the Appellants on the murder charges due to insufficient evidence of joint responsibility. The court did not establish any new precedent but reaffirmed established legal principles requiring the Crown to prove beyond reasonable doubt the participation of each accused in a joint enterprise murder. The ruling underscores the importance of precise pleading and evidential proof in complex circumstantial cases.