Ex-church warden could not murder lecturer by giving whisky, Supreme Court told
Benjamin Field's lawyers argue giving whisky or a sedative could not legally have caused Peter Farquhar's death
A former church warden whose conviction for the murder of a university lecturer was overturned could not have legally caused his death by giving whisky with or without a sedative, the Supreme Court has been told.
Benjamin Field, 35, was jailed for at least 36 years in 2019 after being found guilty of murdering 69-year-old Peter Farquhar in Maids Moreton, Buckinghamshire.
Prosecutors told Field’s trial that he had driven Mr Farquhar to think he was losing his mind to inherit his house and money, secretly giving the pensioner tranquiliser drugs and spiking his whisky in the hope that his death in 2015 would look like suicide or an accident.
After an initial unsuccessful appeal in 2021, the Criminal Cases Review Commission referred the case to the Court of Appeal last year, with Field’s lawyers telling a hearing in March that there was “no evidence” that Mr Farquhar was “forced or deceived” into taking whisky or medication.
In April, appeal judges quashed Field’s conviction and ordered a retrial, but said the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) could take the case to the Supreme Court first.
And on Tuesday, five justices at the UK’s highest court were asked to consider whether Field could have made Mr Farquhar cause his own death without Field legally being responsible.
David Perry KC, for the CPS, said in written submissions: “The judge’s directions correctly recognised that in the factual circumstances of this particular case… it was only if Mr Farquhar decided to go along with the respondent’s plan knowing full well what it was intended to do, that is, to kill him, that he would not be legally responsible for causing the death.
“Only in those circumstances would Mr Farquhar’s decision making be sufficiently independent of the acts of the respondent that his acts would be, in law, sufficiently free, deliberate and, especially, informed and responsible to remove the respondent’s legal responsibility.”
Before his murder trial at Oxford Crown Court, Field admitted two counts of burglary and three of fraud after fraudulently being in relationships with both Mr Farquhar and his neighbour, fellow pensioner Ann Moore-Martin, as part of a plan to get them to change their wills.
He was cleared of conspiring or attempting to murder Miss Moore-Martin, and found not guilty of possession of an article for use in fraud.
Mr Perry told the Supreme Court that Field had “set out cynically to seduce Mr Farquhar” even though Field was heterosexual, and “covertly” put medication, including the sedative Dalmane and hallucinogenic drugs, into his food or drink.
The barrister said that if any substance was covertly administered, or if Mr Farquhar was misled about what he was drinking prior to his death, there would be “no dispute” that Field is guilty of murder.
Mr Perry later said that Mr Farquhar’s “ignorance of the murderous plan” meant that drinking the whisky was not an “independent” act separate from Field’s actions.
Field, who is opposing the appeal, was given a concurrent 16-year jail term for the fraud and burglary offences alongside his life sentence.
David Jeremy KC, for Field, said in written submissions that “the act of giving whisky and/or Dalmane was not capable of being a legally effective cause of death”.
He continued: “This is so whatever the nature of the act of ‘giving’; whether, in the case of whisky, it involved giving a bottle or pouring a glass; and whether, in the case of Dalmane, it involved collecting a subscription or handing over a tablet.”
The barrister also said: “It must follow that if Ben Field, possessed of a continuous intent to kill over many years, had handed Peter Farquhar his car keys at his request, and Peter Farquhar had driven off and died in a traffic accident, then Ben Field would have caused Peter Farquhar’s death and been guilty of murder.”
Justices were later told that an intention for Mr Farquhar to cause his own death by drinking too much “only becomes an intention to kill when it is accompanied by an act intended to cause death”.
Mr Jeremy said: “Peter Farquhar had a choice whether or not to drink whisky given to him by Ben Field.
“He chose to do so freely and voluntarily, knowing what it was and knowing what he was doing.”
The Court of Appeal was previously told that there was no direct evidence of how the Dalmane had been administered, and Mr Farquhar’s post-mortem examination showed he had consumed a therapeutic dose.
And Mr Jeremy told the Supreme Court: “There was no reason why, if Ben Field had smuggled Dalmane into Peter Farquhar’s food or drink that night, he would have restricted himself to a therapeutic dose.”
The hearing before Lords Reed, Hamblen, Leggatt, Stephens and Lady Simler is due to conclude on Tuesday, with a decision expected at a later date.