Baker, R v

In a joint-enterprise murder trial, a summing-up is sufficient where, read as a whole, it fairly directs the jury on joint enterprise, withdrawal and the possibility of separate responsibility. The judge need not repeat the withdrawal issue if it has been clearly put to the jury. Conduct immediately after the offence may assist in determining a defendant’s state of mind when the offence was committed.

Where a robbery count may be proved by alternative allegations concerning different property, the jury must be directed that all jurors must be sure that the defendant is guilty in respect of at least one identified item. A conviction is unsafe if jurors may have relied on different items without a common basis for guilt.

The appellant was convicted at Manchester Crown Court of murder and robbery arising from a violent attempt to leave a taxi without paying the fare. The taxi driver sustained a fatal head injury during an attack involving the appellant and a co-defendant. The appellant then drove the taxi away with the co-defendant as passenger.

He appealed against both convictions. On murder, he contended that the summing-up insufficiently connected the evidence to the law of joint enterprise and failed adequately to address the possibility that he had withdrawn before the fatal injury. He also challenged directions on intent and an illustrative example concerning individual responsibility. On robbery, the count could concern either the taxi or the deceased’s jacket. The central issue was whether the jury had been directed to reach a common basis for the robbery verdict.

1. The appeal was allowed in part. The appeal against the murder conviction was dismissed. The appeal against the robbery conviction was allowed.

2. The summing-up on murder was fair and sufficient. It correctly directed the jury on joint enterprise and withdrawal. The judge expressly identified the possibility that the appellant had withdrawn from the affray by entering the driver’s seat, and that a later attack by the co-defendant may have caused the fatal injury. That direction adequately brought the withdrawal issue to the jury’s attention. It was unnecessary to revisit it later in the summing-up.

3. The direction on intent created no risk of confusion. Although the judge referred to the manner in which the taxi was driven away, the jury had been reminded that the vehicle passing over the deceased had not caused death. Conduct immediately after an offence may throw light on the defendant’s state of mind at the time of its commission.

4. The example concerning the possibility of individual responsibility did not affect the murder verdict. The jury had convicted on the basis of joint enterprise, rather than on the individual basis hypothesised by the example. The court saw no risk that it wrongly influenced their assessment of the appellant’s participation in the enterprise.

5. The robbery conviction was unsafe. The jury could have found robbery either of the taxi or, by joint responsibility, of the deceased’s jacket. Although the judge correctly explained those alternative routes and stated that proof concerning the taxi alone could suffice, the jury were not directed that they must all be sure that robbery was proved in relation to at least one of the same items. Some jurors may therefore have relied on the taxi and others on the jacket. The omission was fatal to that conviction.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In [2003] EWCA Crim 2790, dismissed the appeal against the murder conviction and allowed the appeal against the robbery conviction.
• Manchester Crown Court: On 16 October 2001, the appellant was convicted of murder and robbery before Judge Fawcus and a jury. He received life imprisonment for murder and four years’ imprisonment concurrently for robbery.