Summary of Appellate Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion records an appeal hearing concerning the Appellant. On 31 July 2025 the court allowed the Appellant's appeal and quashed his conviction for murder (see the court's earlier citation: [2025] EWCA Crim 1045). At a further hearing on 17 October 2025 the court declined to quash the Appellant's conviction for conspiracy to rob and substituted a conviction of manslaughter for the earlier murder conviction. The court reserved sentence and invited submissions for a sentencing hearing to be conducted following this judgment.

The underlying facts, as recited by the court, arise from an incident on 22–23 January 2022 in which the Victim was fatally attacked. The Appellant was tried on counts including murder and conspiracy to rob. The court's earlier judgment quashing the murder conviction turned on an interpretation of the jury's verdict in relation to who was present in the bedroom when the fatal attack occurred. The conspiracy to rob conviction remained contested on appeal and was the subject of the court's assessment in this opinion.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the conviction for conspiracy to rob was safe in light of the grounds advanced on appeal.
2. Whether, given the safety of the conspiracy conviction, the court should exercise its powers under section 3 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 to substitute a verdict of manslaughter for the murder conviction.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments (as presented by Attorney Compton)

• The Appellant argued that the credibility of Witness A (the only direct evidence placing the Appellant in the bedroom) was fundamental, and that this evidence must have been integral to the jury's decision to convict the Appellant of conspiracy to rob.
• The Appellant argued that the Appellant's use of violence was proven only by Witness A, and therefore that the conspiracy conviction could not be safely sustained without that witness's evidence.

Prosecution's Arguments (as presented by Attorney Newall and the Crown)

• The Crown submitted that the evidence supporting the conspiracy to rob count was extensive, independent of Witness A, and in a wholly different category to the evidence about presence in the bedroom.
• The Crown noted it is not necessary, to prove conspiracy to rob, that the Crown prove any actual use of force by a defendant.
• The Crown relied on co-defendants' guilty pleas and phone communication evidence, prior associations between the Appellant and co-defendants, conduct on the night (including face covering, movements and communications), and post-incident behaviour (attempts to avoid detection) as independent support for the conspiracy conviction.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court considered whether the conspiracy to rob conviction was unsafe in light of the Appellant's challenge that the jury's verdict depended on the evidence of Witness A. The court's analysis proceeded as follows:

1. The court accepted that the murder conviction had been quashed previously because it was reasonable to interpret the jury's verdict as convicting of murder only those it was sure were in the bedroom when the fatal attack occurred. The only direct evidence placing the Appellant in the bedroom was that of Witness A, making her credibility critical to that specific issue.
2. The court rejected the Appellant's contention that Witness A's evidence was integral to the jury's verdict on the conspiracy to rob count. The court found the evidence supporting the conspiracy charge to be extensive, broad-ranging and independent of Witness A.
3. The court emphasised the legal principle that, for conspiracy to rob, there is no requirement that the Crown prove actual use of force by a particular defendant. Therefore, proof that the Appellant participated in an agreement to rob could be sufficient for conviction without direct evidence of his use of force.
4. The court identified specific factual bases supporting the conspiracy conviction: guilty pleas by two co-defendants admitting a conspiracy to rob; phone communication evidence demonstrating coordinated calls on the evening in question; prior contact between the Appellant and a co-defendant consistent with acquaintance before the incident; contemporaneous behaviour (face coverings, gloves, and provision of balaclavas by a co-defendant); movements to and from the property; and post-incident conduct including attempts to avoid detection and refusal to provide a phone PIN.
5. The court found that some witnesses' evidence (including a co-defendant's account that the Appellant searched the property) could properly be preferred by the jury over the Appellant's account that he did nothing, and that the jury were entitled to find the Appellant's account inconsistent or incredible in light of other evidence.
6. On the substitution issue, the court noted that counsel agreed that, if the conspiracy conviction remained safe, the court could properly use its powers under section 3 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 to substitute a verdict of manslaughter. The court concluded it retained those powers because the appeal proceedings were ongoing and no Crown Court order had been recorded. The court accepted that the Victim died during the commission of an unlawful act, making a conviction for manslaughter available.
7. Accordingly, rather than directing a retrial on the murder count, and at the joint suggestion of the Appellant and the Crown, the court directed substitution of a verdict of manslaughter and reserved the issue of sentence for determination.

Holding and Implications

The court upheld the conviction for conspiracy to rob, quashed the murder conviction and substituted a verdict of manslaughter.

Direct effects and practical implications recorded by the court:

• The conspiracy to rob conviction was held not to be unsafe and therefore remains in force against the Appellant.
• The prior murder conviction was quashed and replaced with a conviction of manslaughter pursuant to the court's powers under section 3 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968.
• The court reserved sentencing and indicated it would hear submissions and impose sentence following this judgment.
• The court directed that there will be no retrial on the murder count in these circumstances.
• The reporting restriction previously imposed by the court on 31 July 2025 was stated to lapse.
• The opinion does not assert that a new legal precedent was established beyond the application of settled principles; the decision describes application of the court's powers and the facts of the case to reach the substituted verdict and related orders.