R v Trenton Best

Direct participation in an attack is not required for liability based on assistance or encouragement. A jury may infer assistance or encouragement from presence and conduct, including joining a pursuit, remaining near the scene and acting consistently with supporting the attack or blocking escape. Whether those inferences should be drawn is ordinarily for the jury where there is evidence capable of supporting them. Assistance or encouragement need not have a positive effect on the principal offender’s conduct. The ordinary meaning of encouragement conveys that the principal must be aware of it, so a separate direction on that issue is unnecessary.

The applicant was convicted at the Crown Court at Basildon on one count of wounding with intent and acquitted of attempted murder. He was sentenced to six years’ detention in a young offender institution. The prosecution alleged that, although he did not enter the car park or attack the victim, he assisted or encouraged co-defendants who stabbed the victim by joining the pursuit and remaining nearby. The applicant renewed his application for leave to appeal against conviction after refusal by a single judge. The issues were whether there was sufficient evidence to leave the case with the jury and whether the jury required a specific direction about the principal offenders’ knowledge of the alleged assistance or encouragement.

The renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction was refused.

1. The judge was correct to reject the submission of no case to answer. There was evidence that the applicant was with the other men before the incident, followed them when they chased the victim, kept pace with them and remained near the car park when the others entered it.
2. It was for the jury to determine whether the co-defendants became aware that the applicant had joined the chase, whether he could see the first flash of the knife, and whether his position was consistent with blocking a potential escape route. Although he did not enter the car park or participate directly in the stabbing, he could have seen and heard events and could have been seen. His subsequent conduct, including leaving with the co-defendants and remaining associated with them, was also relevant.
3. There was ample evidence from which the jury could infer that the applicant’s presence and actions encouraged the others and lent support to the attack. Direct participation in the attack was unnecessary.
4. The direction on assistance or encouragement was clear. Those terms are ordinary English words and required no further explanation. Once assistance or encouragement is proved, there is no requirement to prove that it had a positive effect on the principal offender’s conduct. In relation to encouragement, its ordinary meaning conveys that the person encouraged must be aware of it; a separate direction on that point was unnecessary.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — In [2024] EWCA Crim 1580, the court refused the renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction.
2. Crown Court at Basildon — The applicant was convicted on 8 September 2023 and sentenced on 29 February 2024 to six years’ detention in a young offender institution.