UK Court of Appeal quashes Benjamin Field's Maids Moreton murder conviction on misdirected jury instructions, with Supreme Court referral approved before any retrial
The UK Court of Appeal has quashed the murder conviction of Benjamin Field, who had been found guilty of killing Peter Farquhar in the Maids Moreton case. The three-judge panel — Lord Justice Edis, Mr Justice Goose, and Mr Justice Butcher — ruled that the jury at Field's 2019 trial had not been properly directed and that the directions given on how to reach a verdict were 'defective.' The central legal issue was consent and voluntariness. Field had been convicted of spiking Farquhar's whisky to cause him psychological distress, as part of a scheme to inherit his property. The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge's directions 'effectively withdrew from the jury the question of whether Mr Farquhar's decision to drink the whisky had been voluntary' — a question that was fundamental to whether the actus reus (the guilty act) of the offence had been established. Significantly, the Court also granted the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) permission to take the case to the UK Supreme Court before any retrial takes place — an unusual procedural step that reflects the genuine legal uncertainty about the correct direction on voluntariness in poisoning cases. Field had also targeted another victim, Ann Moore-Martin, a retired headteacher. The quashing of the conviction does not mean an acquittal; it means the conviction cannot stand as it was returned, and the Supreme Court referral will determine whether a retrial is appropriate.
Why this matters
The case raises a discrete and practically significant point of criminal law: the correct jury direction on voluntariness where a victim consumes a substance having been deceived about its nature or content. The Court of Appeal's finding that the direction withdrew this question from the jury is a misdirection of law, not a factual challenge — which is why a Supreme Court reference is both appropriate and unusual. For disputes and criminal practices, the Supreme Court's ruling will set binding precedent on the mens rea and actus reus requirements for poisoning and administering noxious substances offences, affecting future prosecutions in any case where consent or voluntary ingestion is in issue. The procedural point — using a CPS reference to the Supreme Court ahead of retrial — is itself notable and will be tracked by criminal appellate practitioners.
On the Ground
A trainee assisting on a criminal appeal of this kind would prepare witness statement bundles, construct the chronology of trial directions and Court of Appeal grounds, and assist with skeleton argument research on the voluntariness principle and comparative authorities. They would also manage court filing and service of the Supreme Court reference papers.
Interview prep
Soundbite
A defective jury direction on voluntariness in a poisoning case has created a Supreme Court precedent opportunity on consent in criminal law.
Question you might get
“On what legal grounds can a defendant successfully appeal a murder conviction to the Court of Appeal, and what is the procedural route from a Court of Appeal quashing to a Supreme Court reference?”
Full answer
The Court of Appeal has quashed Benjamin Field's 2019 murder conviction in the Maids Moreton case, finding that the trial judge's direction on voluntariness — whether the victim freely chose to drink the spiked whisky — was defective and withdrew a fundamental question from the jury. The CPS has been granted permission to take the point to the Supreme Court before any retrial, which is procedurally rare and reflects genuine appellate-level uncertainty. For criminal and appellate practices, the case will generate binding authority on the voluntariness element of administering noxious substances offences — authority with broad application to future poisoning prosecutions. This illustrates why jury direction accuracy is an area of such intense professional focus: a single misdirection can unravel a conviction years later at significant cost to victims and the justice system. The Supreme Court referral process here will be closely watched by criminal defence and prosecution counsel alike.
My notes
saved