Brierley, R v

A conviction is not unsafe merely because a jury returns different verdicts against co-accused, or convicts of manslaughter while acquitting of murder and attempted murder. The question is whether the verdicts have a rational basis consistent with the evidence and the directions given.

Where alternative verdicts are properly open, comprehensive routes to verdict may be necessary. Their complexity does not establish confusion where the directions fairly reflect the distinct acts and intentions that the jury must assess for each defendant.

R v Brierley concerned four deaths caused when petrol bombs were thrown into an occupied house. The applicant was tried with two co-accused in the Crown Court at Manchester. The prosecution alleged that she had encouraged and assisted the attack with knowledge of the plan.

The jury acquitted her of murder and attempted murder but convicted her of four counts of manslaughter. She received concurrent terms of 21 years’ detention in a young offender institution. After the single judge refused leave, she renewed applications to appeal conviction and sentence. She contended that the manslaughter verdicts were irrational, inconsistent with the other verdicts, and the product of over-complex directions.

1. The renewed applications for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence were refused. The evidence entitled the jury to find that the applicant had assisted and encouraged her co-accused.

2. The trial judge had to provide routes to verdict covering the legally available alternatives. The prosecution and defence cases differed materially between the three defendants, and the jury had to decide separately what each had done and intended. The directions were not over-complex or likely to confuse the jury merely because they addressed those alternatives. The jury sought further assistance only about a co-accused, not the applicant.

3. The manslaughter verdicts were rational. The jury could be sure that the applicant assisted or encouraged an attack on an occupied house with petrol bombs, while not being sure that she intended death or serious injury to any occupant. That conclusion also rationally explained the acquittals of attempted murder.

4. Different conclusions as to the intentions of co-accused did not render the verdicts inconsistent. Rather, they showed that the jury had considered each defendant’s case separately. Since no arguable challenge to the safety of the convictions arose, there was also no arguable basis for saying that the concurrent 21-year sentences were manifestly excessive.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): renewed applications for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence were refused: [2019] EWCA Crim 1231.
• Crown Court at Manchester: the applicant was convicted of four counts of manslaughter and sentenced to concurrent terms of 21 years’ detention in a young offender institution.
• Single judge: applications for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence were refused.