The Court of Appeal has quashed the murder conviction of Benjamin Luke Field in the death of Peter Farquhar, ordering a retrial and granting permission for an appeal to the Supreme Court. Field was originally convicted in 2019 at Oxford Crown Court and sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 36 years for the murder of Farquhar.
At the centre of the case was whether the deceased’s decision to drink whisky, allegedly given by Field, was voluntary and informed, or whether Field’s undisclosed intention to cause death invalidated that voluntariness, breaking the chain of causation. Expert evidence indicated that Farquhar’s death was likely caused by the ingestion of whisky in combination with a medically prescribed sedative, Dalmane. There was no conclusive evidence of smothering, though it was not entirely ruled out.
The Court of Appeal’s majority judgment, delivered by Lord Justice Edis, identified three main legal issues. First, it questioned whether the trial judge and the previous Court of Appeal had erred in holding that Field’s secret intention to kill Farquhar rendered the latter’s act of drinking involuntary under the “free, deliberate and informed” (FDI) rule established in R v Kennedy (No 2). This rule sets out that a third party’s voluntary, informed act can break the chain of causation in a criminal case.
Second, the court considered whether the question of voluntariness, in light of Field’s undisclosed intent, should have been left as a factual matter for the jury’s determination, and whether the trial judge’s directions on this point were adequate. Third, the court reviewed whether the legal directions provided sufficiently guided the jury on these complex issues.
During the trial, the Crown argued that Farquhar’s drinking of whisky was not voluntary because Field had deceived him regarding his intent to kill. Field’s defence claimed he had merely left the whisky for Farquhar to find and was not present when it was consumed. The judge instructed the jury that if Field physically gave Farquhar the drink with intent to kill, even if Farquhar agreed to drink it, the jury could find causation unless Farquhar knew the drink was intended to cause his death.
The jury also sought clarification over scenarios where both men drank together. The judge confirmed that if Farquhar drank knowingly of Field’s intention to kill, this would negate liability. Ultimately, the jury rejected Field’s account, finding he was present and had provided alcohol, sedatives, or smothered Farquhar, leading to the conviction.
On appeal, the Criminal Cases Review Commission prompted a review, citing exceptional circumstances to reconsider causation issues. The Court of Appeal found that the jury had not been properly directed to evaluate whether Farquhar’s consumption of whisky was a free, deliberate, and informed act that broke causation. The court held that for Field to be convicted, it needed to be established that his deception was the cause of Farquhar’s decision to consume the substances and that without this deception, Farquhar would not have done so.
Furthermore, the court noted inadequate jury directions regarding the role of Dalmane and that the possibility of smothering was included in the verdict path despite insufficient evidence. The earlier judgment in the same case was disapproved, and a point of law of general public importance was certified for the Supreme Court’s consideration.
The retrial will revisit the central question of causation and whether Field’s actions legally caused Farquhar’s death, with the jury now required to consider carefully the voluntary nature of Farquhar’s consumption in light of Field’s undisclosed intentions.