The facts
6.On 21 March 2012 the appellants met the deceased, a homeless man, who accompanied them to their flat. The males went out and on their return Chalk alleged that the deceased had sexually assaulted her. That evening, and as a result of hearing that allegation, Nicholls beat up Mr Dack in the car park of a local Aldi store. He was found lying on the ground unconscious and was taken to hospital. Not long afterwards Chalk arrived at the scene and appeared to be distressed at what had happened and told the police that Nicholls was responsible for the attack. 7.It would seem that by Thursday 5 April 2012 Mr Dack had recovered. He met the appellants and went back to their flat again. On this occasion a woman called Amber Patterson was also present. Mr Dack had taken a laptop with him and unbeknown to him the appellants stole it. The males left the flat in an unsuccessful attempt to sell the laptop. On their return one of the two women told the males that Mr Dack had made a sexual approach to Amber Patterson. The males became angry and said the deceased was going to get another beating. The appellants collectively also decided to steal Mr Dack’s bank card and to find out his PIN number. The two females were sent out to the shops whilst the males beat up Mr Dack in the flat. A baseball bat and a knife were used during this attack. Once Mr Dack’s PIN number had been obtained, Woodmansey withdrew £20 from a cash machine. 8.The two females had not witnessed the attack although there was phone contact between those at the flat and them whilst it was going on so that they were aware of what was happening. When the women returned to the flat they could see that Mr Dack had been badly beaten and that he had been put in a wardrobe in one of the bedrooms. The appellants then forced him to clean up his blood from a carpet and he was subjected to a further attack by kicking every time he failed to do as he was told. Not long afterwards Amber Patterson left the flat and did not return. However the appellants and the deceased remained in the flat for the rest of the night. 9.On the following day, 6 April, the deceased who by now was described as being in an appalling condition was left by the four appellants in the flat, having been bound and gagged. The appellants then went out and sold his laptop. On their return Donna Chalk looked through Mr Dack’s mobile phone and referred to him as a “weirdo”. This prompted the three male appellants fatally to assault Mr Dack. All four of the appellants then went out overnight leaving Mr Dack’s body at the flat. 10.On the following day, having returned to the flat, the four appellants set about disposing of the body. It was put into a wheelie bin which was subsequently taken to an industrial estate and set on fire. Petrol had been bought by Nicholls and Woodmansey. Donna Chalk’s responsibility was to clean up the flat.11.A fire at an industrial estate was reported at about 2:30a.m. on Sunday 8 April. The fire service put out the fire and found Mr Dack’s body within the wheelie bin. Later that day the appellants were arrested. 12.The injuries sustained by Mr Dack were dreadful. The final fatal attack had lasted in the region of some 30 minutes. This involved the infliction of injuries by the use of fists, feet, three knives, a baseball bat and bottles. During the course of the attack clothing was removed and the violence stopped while photographs were taken of a severely injured but still alive victim. In all about 20 knife injuries were inflicted. It is clear that the violence resumed after photographs were taken. Most of the injuries would have been inflicted whilst Mr Dack was conscious. 13.In passing sentence the judge described the fatal attack as an orgy of violence. He stated that the photographs taken had the sole purpose of deriving pleasure and satisfaction from seeing what had happened to Mr Dack. He noted that photographs had been taken during the attack on the previous day showing him lying in the bedroom covered in blood. It was also the case that Donna Chalk had kept a photograph on her phone of injuries sustained by Mr Dack in the initial attack on 21 March. She showed that photo to Amber Patterson describing what had happened to him. The judge said that he had no doubt that Ms Chalk delighted in a sense of power which she had subsequently used by making derogatory comments about Mr Dack which she knew and intended would trigger off serious violence by Nicholls in retribution. 14.The Crown’s case against the male defendants was that they had all participated physically in the fatal attack intending that Mr Dack should be killed. The case against Chalk was based upon joint enterprise. It was not suggested that she had physically participated in the attack. In her case it was said that she had intentionally encouraged its commission by the remark about Mr Dack’s phone and that she had been present throughout the attack. Further complicity was demonstrated by her participation in the cover up and disposal of the body. 15.The defence case for Chalk was that she was not present at the time of the fatal attack and that she neither participated in nor encouraged it. Ms Chalk did not give evidence. The defence case in respect of Dwyer-Skeats was initially that he was not present in the flat when the fatal attack took place. At a late stage he changed his account to admit presence but to deny participation in the fatal attack, instead holding Nicholls and Woodmansey responsible. Dwyer-Skeats gave evidence. 16.In passing sentence the judge described Mr Dack as a vulnerable young man. Chalk’s initial allegation of a sexual assault was a false one designed to cement her relationship with Dwyer-Skeats. It led Chalk to realise that she could use sexual allegations to manipulate Nicholls to act violently. On 5 April Mr Dack had been beaten relentlessly not only to obtain his bank card and PIN but also for his alleged sexual behaviour towards Amber Patterson. Whilst Nicholls took the lead, Woodmansey and Dwyer-Skeats played intermittent but significant roles. At the end of the assaults on this day the deceased needed hospital treatment but instead was kept at the flat overnight. As to the fatal attack, the judge found that the fatal wounds were inflicted by Nicholls but that the other two males were part of the attack sharing his intention to kill. The judge said that Mr Dack’s mental and physical suffering prior to his death must have been terrible. 17.We have seen Victim Personal Statements from Emma Duckett, the deceased’s partner, speaking of severe depression caused as a result of this offence, and from his cousin Emma Dack speaking of the family’s anguish at what had happened and the ordeal to which the deceased was subjected. 18.The three male appellants have extensive criminal records, but nothing for serious violence. Ms Chalk has no matters of relevance on her record.