Lanning & Anor v R.

Bad-character evidence may be relevant to an important matter in issue where a defendant says that a fatal stabbing was accidental. A previous deliberate knife attack may help rebut that account, even though whether the stabbing was deliberate and whether the defendant intended really serious harm remain distinct issues. Evidence may also be admitted to counter an attack on another person’s character, subject to the fairness safeguard in the Criminal Justice Act 2003.

In secondary-participant homicide, the unknown use of a knife will ordinarily be an escalation of a joint attack, not an overwhelming supervening act. The trial judge decides whether there is sufficient evidence to leave that issue to the jury. An indictment is not defective merely because it omits another possible offence.

Alex Christopher Lanning was convicted of murder and Jonathan Roy Camille was convicted of manslaughter following a fatal confrontation at an underground station. Lanning had admitted causing the death but denied deliberately stabbing the deceased or intending really serious harm. Camille denied participating in an unlawful attack and argued that Lanning’s use of a knife was an overwhelming supervening act.

Both appellants appealed by leave from the Central Criminal Court, where they had been tried before HHJ Dennis QC and a jury. The appeals concerned the admission of Lanning’s previous convictions, the absence of an overwhelming-supervening-act direction for Camille, and the failure to add a count of affray or assault occasioning actual bodily harm.

Both appeals were dismissed.

1. Lanning’s bad character appeal. The court held that whether the stabbing was deliberate was an important matter in issue distinct from, though closely connected with, the intention required for murder. Under the Criminal Justice Act 2003, evidence of Lanning’s previous unlawful wounding was potentially probative because it showed a previous deliberate use of a knife during a fight, including a wound to the torso. It could rebut the account that the deceased had accidentally turned onto the blade. The court applied the reasoning in R v Hay 2017 EWCA Crim 1851. The authorities in R v Bullen [2008] EWCA Crim 4 and R v Fyle [2011] EWCA Crim 1213 concerned propensity evidence and did not govern this different issue.
2. The previous convictions were also admissible to counter Lanning’s attacks on the character of the deceased and another witness. The judge was entitled to conclude under section 101(3) that admission would not adversely affect the fairness of the proceedings. The evidence was largely undisputed, had clear probative value, and was accompanied by careful jury directions. Once admissible against Lanning, it did not have to be excluded merely because it might affect Camille, against whom it was not admissible.
3. Camille’s overwhelming-supervening-act appeal. Applying R v Jogee [2016] UKSC 8, R v Tas [2018] EWCA Crim 2603 and R v Harper [2019] EWCA Crim 343, the court held that an overwhelming supervening act requires an act which nobody in the secondary party’s position could have contemplated and which relegates the earlier assistance to history. Knowledge of a particular weapon is evidence relevant to intention, not a precondition to liability. The production of a knife may therefore be an escalation of the joint attack.
4. Whether there is sufficient evidence to leave an overwhelming-supervening-act issue to the jury is primarily for the trial judge. The distinction between planned and spontaneous violence, Camille’s lack of knowledge of the knife, and his lack of a history of carrying knives or gang association were not determinative. The judge was entitled to find no sufficient evidential basis for the direction because the appellants had jointly confronted the victims in a public place and the stabbing formed part of rapidly escalating violence.
5. Indictment. The indictment was not defective because it omitted an affray or assault charge. The prosecution was entitled to focus on the homicide allegation, and the judge was under no obligation to amend the indictment under section 5 of the Indictments Act 1915. The jury had been directed to acquit Camille if they were sure only of an unlawful assault but not of homicide liability.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — On 30 March 2021 dismissed Lanning’s appeal against his murder conviction and Camille’s appeal against his manslaughter conviction.
• Central Criminal Court — On 6 August 2020, following trial before HHJ Dennis QC and a jury, Lanning was convicted of murder and Camille was convicted of manslaughter.