Background
Rhys Billy Hedges was convicted of manslaughter at the Crown Court at Lewes on 28 March 2025 after stabbing the victim. His defence was self-defence; there was no suggestion that the stabbing was accidental.
On 29 April 2026, the Court of Appeal dismissed Hedges’ appeal against conviction. He then sought permission to appeal to the Supreme Court and asked the Court of Appeal to certify as a point of law of general public importance whether, absent an unequivocal admission of an intention to cause some harm, a jury considering manslaughter as an alternative must expressly be asked whether it is sure that the defendant had that intention.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal refused both to certify the proposed point of law and to grant leave to appeal. Its earlier decision had turned on the particular facts and circumstances: the jury rejected self-defence, the actus reus of unlawful act manslaughter was not in issue, and no rational jury could properly have concluded that the offence’s mens rea had not been proved. Hedges’ contention that his conduct was merely an “instinctive” reaction formed part of the rejected self-defence case.
The Court distinguished authorities in which omitted directions on the actus reus or mens rea of unlawful act manslaughter made convictions unsafe. Whether such an omission renders a conviction unsafe depends on the live issues and circumstances of the particular trial. The additional authorities cited by Hedges did not make his proposed appeal arguable or show that the Court had departed from the settled approach.
Key Takeaways
- An omitted express direction on the mens rea of unlawful act manslaughter does not automatically make a conviction unsafe.
- The effect of any omitted direction depends on the facts, circumstances, and live issues at trial.
- A case-specific challenge that discloses no arguable legal error will not support certification of a point of law of general public importance or permission to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms that appellate review of jury directions on unlawful act manslaughter is contextual. Courts will examine whether the relevant elements were genuinely disputed and whether, in light of the jury’s other findings, the alleged omission could have affected the safety of the conviction.