Lewis & Ors, R v

A secondary party to a joint enterprise is liable for murder where the fatal violence was of a kind which he foresaw as a possible part of the enterprise. An English direction is unnecessary where the alleged act was not fundamentally different from the intended or foreseen use of violence.

Inconsistent verdicts do not automatically make a conviction unsafe. The appellant must show that the only satisfactory explanation is jury confusion or a wrong approach. A Brown direction is required only where there is a real risk that jurors may rely on different factual ingredients to convict.

Following violent incidents involving two groups outside a bar and at Bridgend railway station, Lewis and Cook were convicted of the murder of Ryan Edwards. Ward was acquitted of murder but convicted of manslaughter. All three were convicted of attempting to cause grievous bodily harm to Ashley Evans and Mark Kilnan. Cook was also convicted of causing grievous bodily harm with intent to Ricky Williams.

The Crown alleged a joint enterprise to give the younger group a severe beating. Lewis and Ward appealed against conviction. Cook sought extensions of time to appeal against conviction and sentence. The central issues were the adequacy of the directions on joint enterprise and unanimity, the effect of Ward’s logically inconsistent verdicts, and whether the evidence and sentences rendered the convictions unsafe or the minimum term excessive.

1. All appeals against conviction were dismissed. Cook’s applications for extensions of time to appeal against conviction and sentence were refused.
2. The court applied R v Powell and Daniels; R v English [1999] 1 A.C. 1 and R v Rahman [2009] 1 A.C. 129. If the jury found a joint enterprise to administer a severe beating with fists and feet, repeated punching or kicking capable of causing really serious harm was an obvious possibility. The attack on Edwards was therefore within the scope of that enterprise. An English direction would have added unnecessary complexity and was not required.
3. Ward’s convictions for manslaughter and attempted grievous bodily harm with intent were logically inconsistent. His conviction on count 5 showed that the jury found that he foresaw really serious violence by the others. That finding should also have led to a murder conviction on count 1. Applying the safety approach in R v Drury (1971) 56 Cr. App. R. 104, R v Durante [1972] 1 W.L.R. 1612 and R v McCluskey (1994) 98 Cr. App. Rep. 216, the court held that the inconsistency did not make the manslaughter conviction unsafe. The likely explanation was reluctance to convict Ward of murder when he had not directly attacked Edwards.
4. No Brown direction was needed on the assault on Evans. Whatever the separate physical contributions of Lewis and Cook, the jury’s other verdicts showed that they found a joint enterprise involving violence capable of causing really serious harm. Each appellant was consequently liable as principal or secondary party.
5. The CCTV and other evidence was sufficient to support Cook’s murder conviction. The minimum terms imposed on Cook and Lewis were not manifestly excessive or objectionably disparate.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Dismissed Lewis’s and Ward’s appeals against conviction. Dismissed Cook’s substantive challenges and refused extensions of time to appeal against conviction and sentence.
• Crown Court at Cardiff: Before Wyn Williams J and a jury, Lewis and Cook were convicted of murder; Ward was convicted of manslaughter. All three were convicted of attempting to cause grievous bodily harm with intent to Evans and Kilnan. Cook was additionally convicted of causing grievous bodily harm with intent to Williams.