Domestic abuse organizations have called on the Supreme Court to reinstate the murder conviction of Benjamin Field, a former churchwarden who was found guilty of killing Peter Farquhar, an elderly author and academic. The case, which inspired the BBC drama "The Sixth Commandment," has come under renewed scrutiny following a Court of Appeal ruling that overturned Field’s 2019 conviction on procedural grounds.
Field, the son of a Baptist minister, was originally convicted of murder after a jury heard that he deliberately left a bottle of whisky at Farquhar’s home in Maids Moreton, Buckinghamshire, knowing that the 69-year-old would die if he consumed it along with prescribed sedatives. Farquhar, a former English teacher at Stowe public school and part-time lecturer at Buckingham University, was a member of the Stowe parish church where Field served as a warden.
The Court of Appeal decision in April found that the trial judge had not properly directed the jury, leading to the quashing of the conviction. Lord Justice Edis stated that although Field intended for Farquhar to die, this did not change the fact that Farquhar’s decision to drink the whisky was “free, deliberate and informed.” The judge further noted there was no evidence that Field had “administered” the alcohol, a critical factor in the legal interpretation.
Currently 35, Field was sentenced to life in prison with a minimum tariff of 36 years. He was also acquitted of attempted murder in relation to Ann Moore-Martin, an 83-year-old retired headteacher who was Farquhar’s neighbour. Prosecutors alleged Field maintained fraudulent sexual relationships with both elderly women as part of a scheme to coerce them into changing their wills.
Field’s legal team has submitted that Farquhar’s consumption of the whisky was a voluntary act, arguing that the former academic was fully aware of what he was doing when he drank. David Jeremy KC, representing Field, emphasized that Farquhar “had a choice whether or not to drink whisky given to him by [Field]” and that this choice should undermine the murder charge.
In response, three domestic abuse charities—Advocacy After Fatal Domestic Abuse, The Centre for Women’s Justice, and Project Resist—have together urged the Supreme Court to overturn the Court of Appeal’s decision. Their joint submission warns that the ruling could set a troubling precedent allowing perpetrators of domestic abuse to evade responsibility for deaths caused by their behavior. Katherine Hardcastle, representing the groups, argued that victims of abuse often do not act freely or voluntarily when their choices are shaped by coercion or harm. She further stated that a victim’s attempt to escape abuse, including through ending their own life, is “no choice at all.”
The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear the prosecution’s appeal of the Court of Appeal ruling, which will determine whether Field’s murder conviction will be reinstated.