R v Presley

The case of R v Presley concerned appeals against convictions for murder. The appellants, Smith and Miller, were jointly tried and convicted of murder. Their appeals raised several grounds, including allegations of misdirection and non-direction by the trial judge, and the contention that the verdicts were unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence.

The primary legal issues before the appellate court were whether the jury directions regarding murder and the alternative verdict of manslaughter were adequate and correct, and whether the evidence presented was sufficient to sustain the jury's guilty verdicts for murder. Specifically, the court had to consider the principles of joint criminal enterprise liability, particularly in relation to the intention to cause grievous bodily harm, and the standard to be applied when assessing whether a verdict is unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence. The court also considered whether the summing up, when viewed as a whole, provided a fair and accurate exposition of the law to the jury.

The court applied established principles regarding joint criminal enterprise liability, drawing on authorities such as R v Bosworth. It reiterated that for liability to be imputed in such circumstances, it must be contemplated that a participant might commit the offence with the necessary intention. This contemplation requires advertence to the possibility of the act being accompanied by the intention to cause grievous bodily harm. Regarding the unreasonableness of the verdict, the court affirmed that an appellant must demonstrate that the jury must have entertained a doubt about guilt, not merely that the evidence was open to criticism or might have precluded satisfaction beyond reasonable doubt. The jury's role as the primary finder of fact, having observed the witnesses, was also given significant weight.

The appeals were dismissed. The court found that there was sufficient evidence to leave it open to the jury to find that Smith was present at the scene and participated in the attack with the necessary intent. The court concluded that the jury's verdicts were not unreasonable and could be supported by the evidence.