Court Of Criminal Appeal (Before MIli. JUSTiCE AvoRv, Mrn. JUSTICE SWVIr, and MnI. JUSTICE CaARLES) The CouRT dismissed the appeals of Victor Edwvard Betts and Herbert Charles Ridley, who wvere convicted before Mr. Commissioner M1itchell-Innes at the Birmingham Assizes on December 5, 1930, of the murder of William Thomas Andrews, an elderly man, on July 24, 1930, at Birmingham, and wvere sentenced to death. The grounds of appeal were, in Betts's case, that the Commissioner misdirected the jury as to the distinction between murder and manslaughter. In Ridley's case, the grounds were:-(I) Misdirection in failing to direct the jury that, to convict Ridley of murder, they must be satisfied that he had not only gone out to take part in robbery, but that he had gone out prepared to be a party to such violence as, in the contemplation of a reason- able man, m-ight occasion death or at least grievous bodily harm to the victim; (2) mis- direction in failing to point out to the jury that, though they came to the conclusion that tbe proper verdict vas one of murder against Betts, it was still open to them to find man- slaughter against Ridley. The evidence was that Andrews was carry- ing a bag containing ?900 on the business of his employers. At a street corner Betts attacked him and snatched his bag. There was only one eye witness of the attack, a man named Dowd, who was driving a motor- vehicle 75 yards awvav. His evidence was that, so far as he could see, Betts had no weapon in his hand. Andrews fell, and his skull, lvhich was admitted to be abnormally thin. was broken. After the crime, the prisoners entered a car driven by Ridley, wvho knew of the intention to steal Andrews's bag, and visited Ports- mouth, London, Leeds, and finally Brighton, wlhere they were arrested. Mr. Salt appeared for Betts t Mr. A. P. Marshall for Ridley; and Sir Henrv Maddocks, K.C., and Mr. M1aurice Healy for the Crowvn. JUDGMENT Mfr. JuSTICE Avoan, in giving the judgment of the Court, said that thle material facts were not in dispute. The two appellants, knowing that Andrews was in the habit of taking money to the bank, and the route w.hich he took, agreed together to waylay and rob him. According to a statement made bv Ridley before the trial they agreed that he should be pushed down and the bag stolen. On the day in question they hired a car and drove to a place which they knexv Andrews would pass. Ridley remained in the car while Betts waylaid Andrewvs. Betts seized him by tle neck and struck him a violent blowv on top of the lhead, either with his bare fists or with a fist clenched wvith something in it. The result of the blowv was to cause a denression of the bone above the left ear. Two medical witnesses were of opinion that to cause that depression there must have been some weapon as well as a fist. The third thought it just possible, but not probable, that a fist might have caused it. The result of the blow was that Andrews fell immediately forwvard on to tle pavement. All the medical witnesses agreed that there was nothing in the character of the pavement to cause the depression of the bone wvhen he fell. Andrews never recovered consciousness, and flied shortly afterwards. Betts, witlh the bag, made his way to the car, 'which was wvaiting for him ,with the door open. It was admitted that the appellants divided the money. They were not arrested for some time, 'vhen they were found at Brighton. Betts did not givc evidence, but Ridley, having made certain statements before trial, gave evidence and put forward a defence that, -while he agreed that Andrews should be robbed, lie only agreed that he should be puslhed aeid his bag snatched, ind never agreed to violence. In cross-exanmination, he admitted that it amounted to this. that he left it to Betts to get the bag how he could. Obviously, that scheme could not be carried out withiout the probability at least of violence having to be used. And, so far as Betts was concerned, if the law had been laid downi by the Com- missionier as it vas definitely laid down by the House of Lords in Director of Public Prosecutions v. Beard (36 Thte Times LR., 379; [19201 A.C. 479), the jury would have had iio option but to convict Betts of wilful murder. In the present case the jury were directed in a way much more favourable to Betts. It was left to them that it was only if they were satisfied that the act was calculated in the judgment of reasonable people to cause death thiat Betts was to be found guilty of murder, and they found him guilty on that too favour- able direction. As to Ridley, 'Mr. Marshall. in a very able address, had sought to persuade them that there was a distinction, and that the Comniis- sioner ought to have told the jury that r*ven though Betts might be guilty of murder, Ridley might be guilty of manslaughter only. There was no suggestion that he could be guilty of anything less than manslaughter, or that he ought to be acquitted. Bearing in mind his confession that he wvas a party to the scheme that this man should be robbed, it was clear that he Was a principal in the second (legree. It wvas clear law that a principal in the second degree need not be an eye-witness or ear-witness. He was, in law, present, aiding and abetting if he was near enouglh to render aid should occasion arise. Ridley was present in that sense, and though it might be true that they had not agreed beforehand that Andrews should be struck on the head so as to cause his death the law was clear that if he was a party to the common design and the principal in the first degree did some act causing death, the principal in the second degree was equally liable. Even if the Commissioner had directed the jury in the way desired, Ridley was still a principal in the second degree to tlis crime of murder, and it was impossible to interfere with the verdict.. He had only to add, as was said by Lord Darling in a similar case, that there might be a distinction to be drawn bv those wvho had the duty, which the Court had not, of cou- sidering the sentence. The appeals were dis- missed. Solicitors.-Registrar of the Court of Criminal Appeal; Director of Public Prosecutions. COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL TWO MURDERERS' APPEALS REX v. BETTS. REX v. RIDLEY