R v Rhys Billy Hedges

In unlawful act manslaughter, the absence of a jury direction on mens rea does not automatically make a conviction unsafe. The consequence depends on the facts and circumstances, including whether actus reus and mens rea were live issues requiring directions and whether a rational jury could have reached a different conclusion.

Where deliberate stabbing was proved, accident was not suggested, self-defence was rejected and no rational jury could find mens rea unproved, the conviction was not unsafe. Fact-sensitive authorities do not establish a universal direction requirement. The court therefore refused certification of a point of law of general public importance and refused leave to appeal.

The appellant had been convicted of manslaughter at the Crown Court at Lewes on 28 March 2025. The Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) dismissed his appeal against conviction on 29 April 2026.

He sought certification of a proposed point of law concerning whether a jury must be directed to consider intention to cause some harm when unlawful act manslaughter is left as an alternative. He also sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. The central issue was whether the proposed question was arguable and of general public importance in light of the facts and the cited authorities.

Application refused. The court refused to certify a point of law of general public importance and refused leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.

1. Fact-sensitive approach. The absence of a direction on the mens rea of unlawful act manslaughter does not automatically render a conviction unsafe. The consequence depends on the facts and circumstances, including whether there were live issues requiring directions on the actus reus and mens rea. The cited authorities did not establish a departure from the settled approach.
2. Relevant authority. In R v Grey [2024] EWCA Crim 487, the conviction was unsafe because directions on both actus reus and mens rea were necessary in light of the live issues arising on the facts. That decision illustrated the importance of the circumstances of each case, rather than establishing an automatic rule.
3. Application to the conviction. The appellant deliberately stabbed the victim. There was no suggestion that the stabbing was accidental. Self-defence was the only material defence, and the jury rejected it. The actus reus of unlawful act manslaughter was not in issue. No rational jury could properly have concluded that the mens rea was unproved. The appellant’s description of his conduct as an instinctive reaction formed part of the rejected self-defence case.
4. Certification. The additional authorities, including R v Bukhari [2025] EWCA Crim 1353 and R v Manen [2025] EWCA Crim 1080, did not make the proposed ground arguable. The appellant’s submissions overlooked the reasoning in the earlier judgment. The present case therefore raised no point of law of general public importance.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — On 24 July 2026, in [2026] EWCA Crim 963 , refused to certify a point of law of general public importance and refused leave to appeal.
• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — On 29 April 2026, dismissed the appellant’s appeal against conviction.
• Crown Court at Lewes — On 28 March 2025, convicted the appellant of manslaughter.