Benjamin Luke Field v R

On a reference under section 13(2) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995, the Court of Appeal must decide for itself whether a conviction is safe. It must give due regard to an earlier decision in the same case, but is not bound by it. Under the free, deliberate and informed principle in R v Kennedy (No 2), a victim’s voluntary consumption ordinarily breaks the causal chain. A defendant’s undisclosed intention to kill does not, without more, make that act involuntary or legally distinguish supplying drink from supplying drugs. Causation and the relevant factual circumstances must be left clearly to the jury. Directions using “and/or” must distinguish different alleged causes and accord with the expert evidence. The conviction was unsafe, quashed and a retrial ordered.

The appellant was convicted of murdering Peter Farquhar at the Crown Court at Oxford on 9 August 2019. His first appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) in [2021] EWCA Crim 380, and an application to reopen that appeal was refused in [2022] EWCA Crim 316. The Criminal Cases Review Commission referred the conviction under section 13(2) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995.

The appeal concerned the judge’s directions on causation. The issues were whether the appellant’s undisclosed intention to kill could make Mr Farquhar’s drinking involuntary, whether the relevant factual questions had been left to the jury, and whether the directions properly distinguished alcohol, Dalmane and smothering as possible causes of death.

1. CCRC reference and precedent. A reference under section 13(2) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995 is treated as an appeal under section 1 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968. The Criminal Procedure Rules reopening procedure did not govern the reference. The court had to decide whether the conviction was safe, giving due regard to the earlier appellate judgment but not treating it as binding.
2. Causation. The principle in R v Kennedy (No 2) [2007] UKHL 38 is that a free, deliberate and informed act by another person may break the causal chain. Causation remains context-specific, but that does not permit the autonomy principle to be disregarded. The appellant’s undisclosed intention that Mr Farquhar should die did not, without more, make his decision to drink whisky involuntary. There was no evidence that the alleged deception caused the decision to drink, or that the appellant’s conduct concerning the whisky was legally different from the supply of drugs considered in Kennedy. The earlier Court of Appeal decision should therefore have quashed the conviction.
3. Questions for the jury. The factual circumstances bearing on whether the victim’s act was free, deliberate and informed had to be left to the jury. The written direction that the appellant could be convicted even if Mr Farquhar agreed to drink removed the decisive causation issue. The later oral directions also assumed the relevant intention and did not require the jury to determine whether it changed the nature of the act.
4. Defective alternative directions. The repeated use of “and/or” improperly joined alcohol, Dalmane and smothering. It left the jury able to convict on unsupported alternatives and failed to direct them on how Dalmane had been consumed. The directions also permitted conviction on smothering without requiring a finding supported by sufficient evidence. They did not accurately reflect the pathology evidence.
5. Orders. The murder conviction was unsafe and was quashed. The court certified a point of law of general public importance under section 33(2) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 and granted leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. A retrial was directed, and the appellant was detained pending the further appeal under section 37(2)(a) of that Act.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — In the present judgment, reported at [2026] EWCA Crim 413, the conviction was quashed, a retrial was directed, and leave to appeal to the Supreme Court was granted.
• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — The first appeal against conviction was dismissed in [2021] EWCA Crim 380.
• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — The application to reopen the first appeal was refused in [2022] EWCA Crim 316.
• Crown Court at Oxford — The appellant was convicted of murder on 9 August 2019.