R v Jack Davies

At the no-case stage, a manslaughter case against an alleged secondary party may properly be left to the jury where the evidence supports inferences of active participation, encouragement of continuing violence, an intention that harm be caused, and knowledge that the principal was armed. Presence alone is insufficient, but conduct before, during and immediately before an attack may provide the necessary evidence. Category B manslaughter may be justified where encouraging an attack by a machete-wielding principal made a high risk of grievous bodily harm or death obvious, or ought to have been obvious. The same evidence may support an intention to cause harm falling just short of grievous bodily harm. An erroneous safe-house aggravating factor need not invalidate a sentence where it had no material effect and the sentence is not manifestly excessive.

Jack Davies was convicted of manslaughter in the Inner London Crown Court on 9 March 2023 and sentenced on 12 April 2023 to 11 years’ detention in a young offender institution. He was alleged to have encouraged or assisted the principal offender, who stabbed the victim, intending that some harm be caused. A single judge refused leave to appeal.

Davies renewed applications for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence. The conviction grounds challenged the finding that there was a case to answer and the fairness of the summing-up. The sentence grounds challenged the Category B classification and the use of a safe house as an aggravating factor. The central issues were whether the evidence could support secondary liability and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive.

The Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) refused leave to appeal against both conviction and sentence.

1. Conviction. The trial judge was entitled to leave the case to the jury. The evidence permitted inferences that Davies had participated in the initial confrontation, moved the car, watched what was occurring and then ran at speed to rejoin the group shortly before the stabbing. That conduct could amount to encouragement and support for the continuing attack. The judge was also entitled to leave it to the jury to infer that Davies knew the principal had a knife and intended that harm be caused.
2. The court distinguished R v Buckley and Williams. In that case the evidence was materially different: it did not show that the defendant knew the stabber had a knife and provided limited support for anything beyond presence. Davies’s case involved evidence of active participation and knowledge of the weapon. The criticisms of the summing-up, including its treatment of the CCTV and witness evidence, had no substance. The conviction was not unsafe.
3. Sentence. The trial judge was entitled to place the offence in Category B2. The evidence supported both an inference that Davies intended harm falling just short of grievous bodily harm and the conclusion that encouraging an attack by a person armed with a machete-type knife involved a high risk of grievous bodily harm, which was or ought to have been obvious. Either basis was sufficient to justify the Category B classification.
4. It was inappropriate to treat Davies as providing a safe house because the house was already the group’s intended destination and had not been arranged to conceal them or assist evasion of justice. That factor had no material effect on sentence. Group activity and the attack’s location near a nursery were proper aggravating factors. Even leaving out the safe-house reference, the sentence of 11 years was not manifestly excessive. Leave to appeal against sentence was therefore refused.

• Inner London Crown Court: Davies was convicted of manslaughter on 9 March 2023 and sentenced to 11 years’ detention in a young offender institution on 12 April 2023.
• Single judge: Applications for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence were refused.
• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The renewed applications were refused. The conviction and sentence were left undisturbed: [2024] EWCA Crim 275.