Campbell & Ors, R v

In a joint enterprise, a participant avoids liability for fatal violence only by effectively and clearly disengaging before the fatal injuries are inflicted. Whether disengagement occurred, whether the enterprise continued, and whether later violence fell within its scope are questions for the jury.

For homicide, conduct need only be a significant cause of death. It need not be the sole or principal cause, and the prosecution need not identify the fatal blow. A later assault does not break causation where it is not fundamentally different from the preceding group violence.

The appellants were tried at the Central Criminal Court before the Common Serjeant for the killing of Ian Page following group violence in which he was punched, knocked down and kicked. André Campbell was convicted of murder and Lloyd Henry of manslaughter. Jermaine Yateman was convicted of murder and sought leave to challenge his minimum term.

Campbell and Henry contended that they had participated only in an earlier incident, whereas Yateman alone caused the fatal injury in a separate later assault while attempting robbery. The central issues were causation and whether any joint enterprise continued to the later assault.

1. The conviction appeals were dismissed. The evidence entitled the jury to find that injuries inflicted during the earlier group assault significantly contributed to the death. The expert evidence supported a cumulative mechanism of brain injury. The prosecution did not have to identify a particular fatal blow or prove that either appellant’s conduct was the sole or principal cause.

2. The judge’s causation direction was correct. In a joint-enterprise case, the group’s acts suffice if they significantly contribute to death. The jury had to decide, on the evidence, when the relevant injuries were sustained and whether they were a significant cause of death.

3. The judge also adequately directed the jury on withdrawal and the scope of the enterprise. Applying R v O’Flaherty and Others [2004] 2 Cr App R 20, the court held that the jury had to consider whether either appellant had clearly disengaged before the fatal injuries and whether the joint enterprise remained in existence when Yateman acted. The amended direction properly left open whether Yateman’s attempted robbery took his use of force beyond the common purpose.

4. There was evidence on which the jury could find that neither appellant had withdrawn and that the joint enterprise extended to Yateman’s later actions. His violence was not fundamentally different from what had gone before. It therefore did not amount to a new intervening act breaking causation, as alleged by reference to R v Rafferty [2007] EWCA Crim 1846.

5. Yateman’s renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused. The 15-year minimum term was appropriate, rather than manifestly excessive, given the group assault, public setting, attempted robbery, previous violent offending and Yateman’s continuing attack on the victim.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In [2009] EWCA Crim 50, the court dismissed Campbell’s and Henry’s conviction appeals and refused Yateman leave to appeal against his minimum term.
• Central Criminal Court: Before the Common Serjeant, Campbell and Yateman were convicted of murder and Henry of manslaughter. Campbell and Yateman received life sentences with 15-year minimum terms; Henry received eight years’ detention in a young offender institution.