Grey, R. v [2024] EWCA Crim 487 (08 May 2024)
The conviction for manslaughter is unsafe because the jury were not directed on the elements of the base offence (common assault), and there was insufficient evidence to establish that offence. The failure to identify and prove the base offence constituted a fundamental misdirection of law, rendering the conviction unsafe.
- Citation
- [2024] EWCA Crim 487
- Parties
- Respondent: Rex; Appellant: Auriol Grey
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 08 May 2024
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction After Retrial and Sentencing
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed; conviction quashed
- Legal Topics
- Manslaughter, Unlawful Act Manslaughter, Common Assault, Jury Directions, Miscarriage of Justice
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Rex
Respondent
Auriol Grey
Appellant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction After Retrial and Sentencing
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the conviction for manslaughter was unsafe due to failure to direct the jury on the elements of the base offence (common assault)
- 2 Whether there was sufficient evidence to establish the actus reus and mens rea of common assault as the base offence for unlawful act manslaughter
Ratio Decidendi
The conviction for manslaughter is unsafe because the jury were not directed on the elements of the base offence (common assault), and there was insufficient evidence to establish that offence. The failure to identify and prove the base offence constituted a fundamental misdirection of law, rendering the conviction unsafe.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed; conviction quashed
Orders
- Conviction for manslaughter quashed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment