The UK's Supreme Court is considering arguments in the case of Benjamin Field, who was convicted of murdering Peter Farquhar. Field was sentenced to a minimum of 36 years in 2019 for the 2015 death of the 69-year-old university lecturer in Maids Moreton, Buckinghamshire.

In April, the Court of Appeal quashed Field's conviction and ordered a retrial. However, the Crown Prosecution Service was granted permission to appeal to the Supreme Court. On Tuesday, five justices heard arguments on whether Field could legally be held responsible for Mr. Farquhar's death, specifically if giving him a potentially sedated whisky could be considered the cause.

Prosecutors at Field's trial argued that he systematically manipulated Mr. Farquhar, including by secretly drugging him and spiking his whisky. The aim, they contended, was to make the death appear to be suicide or an accident, thereby allowing Field to inherit the victim's home and assets. The case gained public attention through the Bafta-winning BBC drama "The Sixth Commandment."

Prior to his murder trial, Field admitted to burglary and fraud offenses related to his relationships with Mr. Farquhar and his neighbor, Ann Moore-Martin. These offenses involved persuading them to alter their wills. He received a concurrent 16-year sentence for these crimes. Field was acquitted of conspiring or attempting to murder Ms. Moore-Martin and of possessing an article for use in fraud.

David Jeremy KC, representing Field, argued in written submissions that the act of giving the whisky was not legally capable of causing death. He presented a hypothetical scenario where Field handing Mr. Farquhar his car keys, if followed by a fatal accident, would make Field legally responsible for the death. However, he contended that Mr. Farquhar's choice to drink the whisky, knowing what it was, was a free and voluntary act.

The Court of Appeal had previously noted a lack of direct evidence regarding the administration of the sedative Dalmane, and that a post-mortem examination indicated a therapeutic dose. Jeremy argued to the Supreme Court that if Field had administered Dalmane surreptitiously, he would not have restricted himself to a therapeutic dose.

The hearing concluded on Tuesday, and a decision from the Supreme Court is expected at a later date.