Saunders, R v

For an offence of assisting an offender under section 4(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1967, the prosecution must prove that the principal committed a relevant offence, that the defendant knew or believed this, that the defendant acted to impede apprehension or prosecution, and that there was no lawful authority or reasonable excuse.

Where the alleged relevant offence is identified for the jury, the judge must direct on its full ingredients before the jury can find that it was committed. Directions on unlawfulness and self-defence given for another count cannot safely be assumed to govern that separate inquiry, particularly without a route to verdict. A failure to give those directions may render the conviction unsafe.

The appellant was tried at the Crown Court at Chelmsford with others for the murder of John Smith. The prosecution alleged that, after the violence, she drove Laurence Wheatley from the scene knowing or believing that he had committed an offence, thereby assisting an offender contrary to section 4(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1967.

The jury acquitted the appellant and Wheatley of murder. It then convicted the appellant of assisting an offender, on the basis that Wheatley might have committed grievous bodily harm with intent under section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861.

On appeal, the central issue was whether the jury had received sufficient directions on the ingredients of the alleged relevant offence, including self-defence, before convicting the appellant.

1. Appeal allowed; conviction quashed. The appellant’s conviction for assisting an offender was unsafe because the jury had not been adequately directed on the offence which Wheatley was alleged to have committed.
2. Section 4(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1967 required the prosecution to prove that Wheatley committed a relevant offence; that the appellant knew or believed him guilty of that or another relevant offence; that she acted with intent to impede his apprehension or prosecution; and that she acted without lawful authority or reasonable excuse.
3. The particulars permitted the prosecution to rely on a relevant offence other than the attempted murder specified. The acquittal of Wheatley for murder did not, as a matter of law, prevent the prosecution from seeking to prove for count 2 that he had committed another relevant offence. The court applied the approach in R v Donald and Donald (1986) 83 Cr App R 49 and R v Zaman [2010] 1 Cr.App.R. 29.
4. Once the judge confined the possible relevant offences to attempted murder and grievous bodily harm with intent, the jury had to be directed on the ingredients of each before it could find that Wheatley had committed either. This included the need to be sure that any violence was unlawful and that Wheatley had not acted in self-defence.
5. The directions on unlawful violence and self-defence given on the murder count against Wheatley did not sufficiently perform that function for count 2. In a long and complex trial, and without a written route to verdict for count 2, the jury could not be expected to carry those directions across. The later direction, after the acquittals for murder, still omitted the mental element, unlawfulness and self-defence in relation to the section 18 offence.
6. There was no application for a retrial. In light of the conclusion on the defective directions, the court did not address the first ground of appeal further.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — allowed the appeal and quashed the conviction: [2011] EWCA Crim 1571.
• Crown Court at Chelmsford — on 26 October 2010, following a jury trial before HHJ Ball QC, convicted the appellant of assisting an offender contrary to section 4(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1967.