Haynes v Davis: 1915

The court was asked as to the meaning of a person being in peril. Lush J (dissenting) set out three requirements for a person to be in peril – (1) the court was competent to try him for the offence (2) the trial was on a good indictment on which a conviction could be entered and (3) the acquittal was on the merits. He continued: ‘I quite agree that ‘acquittal on the merits’ does not mean that the jury or the magistrate must find as a matter of fact that the person charged was innocent; it is just as much an acquittal upon the merits if the judge or the magistrate were to rule upon the construction of an Act of Parliament that the accused was in law entitled to be acquitted as in law he was not guilty, and to that extent the expression ‘acquittal on the merits’ must be qualified, but in my view the expression is used by way of antithesis to a dismissal of the charge upon some technical ground which had been a bar to the adjudicating upon it. That is why this expression is important, however one may qualify it, and I think the antithesis is between an adjudication of not guilty upon some matter of fact or law and a discharge of the person charged on the ground that there are reasons why the Court cannot proceed to find if he is guilty.’

Judges:

Lush J

Citations:

[1915] 1 KB 332

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Dissenting judgment approvedJelson Estates Ltd v Harvey CA 1983
Whilst accepting that a man may not be tried again for the same offence if he was in jeopardy on the first trial ‘in considering whether he was in jeopardy, one of the factors is whether the acquittal was on the merits, by verdict at the trial or, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.545458