R v Williams; R v Davis [1992] 2 All ER 183
Directions on evidence and causation in manslaughter by an unlawful act (joint enterprise)
Facts
The victim was a hitchhiker picked up by Mr Williams; Mr Davis and Mr Bobat were passengers in the car. After a few miles, the victim jumped out of the moving car and suffered fatal injuries. Mr Williams and Mr Davis were convicted of manslaughter and robbery after the jury accepted that they robbed the victim (as pre-planned) and threatened him with physical violence as a result of which he jumped out of the car; Mr Bobat was acquitted. Messrs Williams and Davis appealed.
Issues
The judge directed the jury that statements to the police could only be used against the maker of the statement, but Mr Williams argued that the evidence was too tenuous to go before the jury, and that his conviction was inconsistent with Mr Bobat’s acquittal. Mr Davis claimed that the judge should have accepted a submission of no case to answer; that his conviction was based on Mr Bobat’s statement to the police and that evidence of the mere presence of a knife and stick in the car should not have been admitted.
Decision/Outcome
Firstly, the evidence shown in order to prove the presence of a joint enterprise to rob the victim applied equally against all defendants and thus the conviction of Messrs Williams and Davis was indeed inconsistent with Mr Bobat’s acquittal. It follows that that the jury must have used the defendants’ statements to the police against other defendants, despite the judge’s direction to the contrary. Further, the jury should have been directed that the victim’s actions must be proportional to the gravity of the threat. Based on these failures, joint enterprise could not be proven and, consequently, the case for robbery failed. In the absence of an unlawful act, the elements of manslaughter were also not present.
Updated 20 March 2026
This case summary accurately reflects the decision in R v Williams; R v Davis [1992] 2 All ER 183. The case remains good law on the causation principle it established: where a victim’s reaction to a threat is the immediate cause of death, the defendant’s unlawful act will only break the chain of causation if the victim’s response was not within the range of responses that might be expected from a person in that situation (i.e., it must be reasonably foreseeable). This principle has been consistently applied in subsequent cases.
Readers should note, however, that the law on joint enterprise has been significantly developed since 1992. In particular, the Supreme Court’s decision in R v Jogee; Ruddock v The Queen [2016] UKSC 8 departed from the previous approach in Chan Wing-Siu v R [1985] and restated the mental element required for accessorial liability in joint enterprise cases. The Jogee decision does not undermine the causation principle for which Williams and Davis is primarily cited, but students relying on this summary in the context of joint enterprise more broadly should ensure they are familiar with the current law as set out in Jogee.
