Grey, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

On 20 October 2020, the Appellant was walking on a pavement along the Huntingdon ring road when an incident occurred involving Mrs Ward, a 77-year-old experienced cyclist who was riding her bicycle in the opposite direction on the same pavement. The Appellant gesticulated and shouted at Mrs Ward to "Get off the fucking pavement," subsequently walking towards her. Mrs Ward fell off her bicycle into the road and was fatally struck by a car. The Appellant, aged 46 at the time, has cerebral palsy and related disabilities including impaired vision and cognitive impairment. She was charged with unlawful act manslaughter, with the prosecution alleging that her hostile actions caused Mrs Ward’s fall and death.

The Appellant was convicted of manslaughter after a retrial at the Crown Court at Cambridge sitting at Peterborough on 24 February 2023 and sentenced to three years’ imprisonment on 2 March 2023. Leave to appeal against sentence was refused on 19 May 2023. Subsequently, following a change in legal representation, leave to appeal against conviction and an extension of time were granted on 19 March 2024.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the trial judge erred in failing to specify and direct the jury on the elements of the relevant unlawful act (base offence) constituting manslaughter.
2. Whether there was sufficient evidence for the jury to be sure that the Appellant committed the base offence of common assault, which is necessary for unlawful act manslaughter.
3. Whether the jury were properly directed on the mental element (mens rea) of common assault, including intention or recklessness.
4. Whether the conviction for manslaughter is safe in light of the alleged failures in jury directions and evidential deficiencies.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The trial judge failed to identify and direct the jury on the specific unlawful act constituting the base offence for manslaughter, leaving the jury without consideration of essential elements.
• The factual elements left to the jury were legally insufficient to support a conviction for manslaughter.
• There was insufficient evidence to prove any base offence had been committed, as no physical contact was established.
• The failure to address the base offence was overlooked by all parties and the judge, undermining the safety of the conviction.

Respondent's Arguments

• The judge did not leave the elements of any specific base offence to the jury, but common assault was the only possible base offence given the facts.
• Despite no directions on common assault, the jury were effectively directed such that they would inevitably have found common assault was committed.
• The cumulative evidence, legal directions, and route to verdict enabled the jury to properly understand the issues, including unlawfulness of the Appellant’s actions.
• Therefore, the conviction is not unsafe.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court examined the legal requirements for unlawful act manslaughter, emphasising that the unlawful act must itself be a criminal offence with all elements proved to the jury. The trial judge failed to specify the base offence constituting the unlawful act and did not direct the jury on the essential elements of common assault, the only possible base offence here given no evidence of physical contact. The jury were not instructed on the actus reus or mens rea of common assault, including the necessity to prove that the Appellant’s conduct caused the deceased to apprehend immediate unlawful violence and that this was done intentionally or recklessly.

The court found that the judge’s directions focused improperly on accident and self-defence without addressing whether the Appellant’s actions constituted common assault. The misdirection extended to the self-defence instructions, which assumed unlawfulness without first establishing the base offence. The prosecution case was deficient as it did not establish beyond reasonable doubt that Mrs Ward apprehended immediate unlawful violence, a fundamental element of the base offence.

Given these failings, the court concluded that the conviction was unsafe. It noted that had the issues been properly identified, the evidential insufficiency would have been apparent, and the jury would have been given appropriate directions on the Appellant’s cognitive impairments and their relevance to recklessness. The court acknowledged the tragic circumstances but underscored that legal requirements must be met to sustain conviction.

Holding and Implications

The appeal is ALLOWED and the conviction for manslaughter is quashed.

The direct effect is that the Appellant’s conviction is overturned due to fundamental legal errors in jury directions and evidential insufficiency regarding the base offence. No new legal precedent is established; rather, the decision reaffirms the necessity of properly identifying and proving all elements of the unlawful act in unlawful act manslaughter cases. The court’s ruling underscores the critical importance of precise jury instructions on both the actus reus and mens rea of the base offence to ensure safe convictions.