Nethercott, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

On 23 April 2021, a party at a house in Jaywick, Essex, escalated into violence involving multiple attendees who had been drinking and using cocaine. The Appellant was alleged to have assaulted several individuals during the disturbances outside the house. Among the victims was Michelle Cooper, who fell and struck her head, sustaining fatal brain injuries and dying two days later. The Appellant and four others were charged on an indictment containing six counts, including manslaughter and multiple assaults occasioning actual bodily harm. The Appellant denied intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm and claimed self-defence for most charges, denying involvement in one.

Following a Crown Court trial at Chelmsford, the Appellant was convicted of manslaughter and two assaults occasioning actual bodily harm and sentenced to eight years' imprisonment. The Appellant appealed against the conviction on one ground with leave and renewed applications for leave to appeal on other grounds and against sentence, all refused by the single judge.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the evidence of previous convictions from a separate trial was admissible and properly admitted.
2. Whether the judge erred by interrupting counsel's closing speech.
3. Whether the judge's failure to provide written directions to the jury was a procedural error affecting the safety of the conviction.
4. Whether the judge erred in failing to direct the jury on the "householder defence" under section 76 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008.
5. Whether the judge misstated the expert medical evidence in the summing up, affecting the safety of the manslaughter conviction.
6. Whether the sentence was manifestly excessive, including the categorisation of culpability and weight given to mitigation.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The evidence of previous convictions from the Bristol trial was inadmissible or should have been excluded due to its prejudicial effect, particularly as the Appellant was convicted in absence and unable to present a defence.
• The judge misdirected herself and improperly interrupted counsel's closing speech.
• The judge erred by declining to provide written directions, which were necessary given the complexity of the case.
• The judge failed to direct the jury on the householder defence, which was relevant to the self-defence claims.
• The judge inaccurately summarized the expert medical evidence, wrongly indicating that the fatal injury was caused by a punch rather than allowing for a push, thus misleading the jury and rendering the manslaughter conviction unsafe.
• The total sentence of eight years was manifestly excessive; the offence should have been categorised as category D rather than category C, and greater weight should have been given to mitigation, including the Appellant’s medical condition and the effects of Covid-19 on custodial sentences.

Respondent's Arguments

• The admission of previous convictions was correct as they demonstrated a relevant propensity for violence, and the convictions had not been appealed.
• The judge's interruption of counsel's speech was appropriate and did not affect fairness.
• The failure to provide written directions did not render the conviction unsafe as oral directions were sufficient and correctly covered self-defence and bad character evidence.
• The judge correctly declined to direct the jury on the householder defence because the facts did not constitute a householder case.
• The judge acknowledged a slip in summarising the expert evidence but corrected it later; the jury were clearly directed that they had to be sure of a punch rather than a push.
• The offence was correctly categorised as category C, and the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The acquittal on one assault charge did not affect the sentence for manslaughter.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court carefully examined each ground of appeal. It found that the central factual issue for the jury was whether the Appellant punched or pushed the deceased, Michelle Cooper. While the judge correctly identified this issue and directed the jury accordingly, the court identified a critical error in the summing up: the judge misstated expert medical evidence by indicating the fatal injury was caused by a punch, when the expert had accepted it could have been a punch or a hard push. The judge acknowledged the slip but failed to correct it explicitly to the jury, potentially misleading them and rendering the manslaughter conviction unsafe. Consequently, the conviction on count 6 was quashed.

Regarding the admission of previous convictions from the Bristol trial, the court held that since the Appellant was legally presumed to have committed those offences and had not discharged the burden of proof, it was appropriate to admit this evidence to show propensity. Questions about the fairness of the Bristol trial were irrelevant to the present case. The judge’s interruption of counsel was not improper.

The court regretted the judge’s refusal to provide written directions but acknowledged that oral directions and the route to verdict document were sufficient to avoid misdirection or unsafe convictions for the other counts. The failure to direct the jury on the householder defence was not an error because the facts did not constitute a householder case, and the correct interpretation of the law did not require such a direction.

On sentencing, the court found no error in categorising the manslaughter offence as category C and held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The acquittal on one assault charge did not necessitate a different sentencing approach.

In light of the quashing of the manslaughter conviction, the court considered the interest of justice and ordered a retrial on that count, with directions for a fresh indictment and arraignment within specified timeframes. A reporting restriction was imposed to avoid prejudice to the retrial.

Holding and Implications

The court ALLOWED the appeal against conviction on count 6 (manslaughter) and QUASHED that conviction. It refused the renewed applications for leave to appeal against conviction on other grounds and against sentence.

The court ordered a retrial on count 6, directing that a fresh indictment be served and the Appellant be rearraigned within two months. The retrial is to take place at the Crown Court at Chelmsford before a judge allocated by the Resident Judge.

The Appellant remains convicted of the two counts of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and subject to concurrent sentences of 12 months' imprisonment on each. The court imposed a reporting restriction on this appeal until the retrial concludes to avoid prejudice.

No new legal precedent was established; the decision primarily affects the parties by quashing the manslaughter conviction and ordering a retrial.