R v Andrew Claydon

Where it is undisputed that a defendant’s unlawful assault was a substantial cause of death, the actus reus of murder is established. A disputed act within the same assault may nevertheless be relevant solely as evidence of the defendant’s mens rea.

Accordingly, a jury may consider whether the defendant deliberately stamped on a victim’s already broken arm when deciding whether he intended to cause really serious injury. That act need not itself have caused or contributed to the death. The directions must, however, make clear the separate functions of causation and intention.

The appellant pleaded guilty to manslaughter following an assault on Matthew Pearson. He was later convicted of murder at Preston Crown Court and sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 14 years.

It was accepted that the appellant’s unlawful violence was a substantial cause of Mr Pearson’s death from traumatic brain injury. At trial, the principal issue was whether the appellant intended to cause really serious injury. The prosecution alleged a stamp to the victim’s head. The appellant denied that allegation but accepted stamping on the victim’s arm, which was in a plaster cast.

On appeal, he contended that the jury had wrongly been permitted to convict of murder by treating the arm stamp as the only act accompanied by the required intent, despite that act not causing death.

1. Appeal dismissed. The murder conviction was safe.
2. The appellant’s argument wrongly conflated the separate requirements of actus reus and mens rea. It was undisputed that his unlawful assault was a substantial cause of the victim’s death. That remained so whether the fatal head injury resulted from the forceful throw to the ground or from a stamp to the head.
3. The sole live issue was intention. The jury had to determine from all the evidence whether, when committing the assault, the appellant intended to cause really serious injury. The directions accurately identified that issue.
4. The suggested stamp on the victim’s already broken arm was relevant as evidence from which the jury could infer the requisite intention. The judge did not direct the jury that the arm injury had caused death or that it supplied the actus reus of murder.
5. Read as a whole, the summing-up clearly separated the agreed causal element from the contested mental element. There was no risk that the jury reached an impermissible conclusion about causation on the basis of the arm stamp.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Appeal against conviction dismissed; the murder verdict was safe.
• Crown Court at Preston: The appellant pleaded guilty to manslaughter on 27 April 2021. On 5 May 2021, a jury convicted him of murder by a majority of 10 to 2. He received life imprisonment with a 14-year minimum term.