Neil Wilby Media

A man’s murder conviction has been referred to the Court of Appeal by the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) under the ‘exceptional circumstances’ rule. 

The referral relates to the issue of causation, a point of law which was previously considered by the court, but about which there is now further legal argument.  

Benjamin Field was convicted in August 2019 at Oxford Crown Court of the murder of Peter Farquhar. Mr Farquhar was found dead in his home in Maids Moreton in October 2015. Mr Field had pretended to be in a relationship with Mr Farquhar to inherit his estate.  

Mr Farquhar’s cause of death was determined as being a result of acute alcohol toxicity, but after a second post-mortem Flurazepam, which is commonly used to treat insomnia, was also found. Mr Field was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 36 years.  

The prosecution case was that Mr Field had manipulated Mr Farquhar into changing his will and then killed him by giving him whisky and encouraging him to drink it. This was while deceiving him as to his true intention, so making it look as if he had drunk himself to death.

The defence case was denial of an intention to kill. During the trial, the defence argued that as a matter of law an individual’s deceptive conduct could amount to murder only if the deception was as to the nature of the act, and not as to their intention in committing it.

The trial judge, Mr Justice Sweeney, ruled against this argument.  

Mr Field appealed his conviction, arguing that the legal ruling was incorrect and so the directions given to the jury in relation to causation were insufficient and wrong in law. The conviction was upheld by the Court of Appeal in March 2021 (read full judgment here) and subsequent applications for permission to appeal to the Supreme Court and for the certification of a point of law of general public importance were refused in June 2021.

An application to re-open the appeal, filed later that month, was also refused in March 2022 (read full judgment here).  

An application to the CCRC was received in September 2022 making two submissions: Firstly, that the criticism on the directions on causation is supported by decisions on consent procured by deception in the law of sexual offences (where consent is invalidated only if the deception is as to the nature of the act or the identity of the perpetrator). 

Secondly, it has been argued there are exceptional circumstances which justify the court to reconsider the argument on causation which was made on appeal. Exceptional circumstances are considered where an argument has developed that could persuade the court that the conviction is unsafe. 

The issue of causation was dealt with extensively at trial and the appeal, but the CCRC has considered that this case should be referred as there is sufficient merit in the submissions now, giving rise to a real possibility that the court will find his conviction of murder unsafe.  

____________________________________________________________________________

Neil Wilby is a journalist, court reporter and transparency campaigner who has reported on police misconduct, regulatory failures, and criminal and civil justice since 2009. He is the founder and editor of Neil Wilby Media, launched in 2015.

Page last updated: Tuesday 2nd September 2025 at 12h55

Corrections: Please let me know if there is a mistake in this article. I will endeavour to correct it as soon as possible.

Right of reply: If you are mentioned in this article and disagree with it, please let me have your comments. Provided your response is not defamatory, it will be added to the article.

Image Credits: HMCTS

© Neil Wilby 2015–2025. Unauthorised use, or reproduction, of the material contained in this article, without permission from the author, is strictly prohibited. Extracts from, and links to, the article (or blog) may be used, provided that credit is given to Neil Wilby, with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.