Citations:

[2002] NICA 1

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Northern Ireland

Crime

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.189651

The defendant appealed against his conviction in 1992 of robbery, saying that it had been on the basis of evidence presented in part by officers from a squad known to have been involved in corrupt practices, and that if such evidence was excised, there would be insufficient to found the conviction.
Held: The appeal failed. The conviction remained safe.

Judges:

Toulson LJ, Openshaw J, Rook QC J

Citations:

[2011] EWCA Crim 2535

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Crime

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.448147

The defendant, out of strong conviction, entered an art gallery and knocked the head from a statue of Margaret Thatcher.
Held: The court examined the breadth of the defence of ‘lawful excuse’ to a charge of criminal damage, and whether a court could direct a jury to convict. Despite the possible defects in the direction, the conviction remained safe.

Judges:

Lord Justice Mantell, Mr Justice Elias, Mr Justice Jack

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Crim 3525

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Damage Act 11971

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Hunt CACD 1978
The defendant had been charged with setting fire to a guest room in an old people’s home. He claimed that he had done so to draw attention to a defective fire alarm system. He sought to set up a statutory defence under section 5(2) by claiming to . .
Cited – Rex v Heyes KBD 1951
For so long as a defendant remains in the charge of the jury he or she can only be acquitted or convicted by the verdict of the jury. . .
Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions v Stonehouse HL 1977
The defendant had been charged with attempting to obtain property by deception by fabricating his death by drowning in the sea off Miami in Florida. The final act alleged to constitute the offence occurred outside the jurisdiction of the English . .
Cited – Regina v Hill and Hall CACD 1989
The defendants were separately tried for possession of an article with intent to damage property contrary to section 3. In each case the article in question was a hacksaw blade and it was the prosecution case that each of the applicants intended to . .
Cited – Regina v Ashford and Smith CACD 1988
The defendants tried to cut the wire fence around an American Air Force base to demonstrate their opposition to nuclear weapons. They were charged with possession of an article with intent to damage property. The judge ruled that the purported . .
Cited – Regina v Hickey, Hickey, Robinson, Molloy CACD 30-Jul-1997
The case concerned the production for the benefit of the defence, of the prison records of a prosecution witness who was putting forward an account of a cell confession. The Appeal Court is not concerned with the guilt or innocence of the appellant, . .
Cited – Regina v Davis, Rowe, Johnson CACD 17-Jul-2000
The court made a distinction between convictions found on appeal to be unfair, and those found to be unsafe. The prosecution had not disclosed to the defendants that the source of their information was a police informer. The European Court of Human . .
Cited – Stirland v Director of Public Prosecutions HL 1944
The House considered what was the appropriate test for allowing a conviction to stand despite the finding of an irregularity in the trial.
Held: The House must be satisfied that there was ‘a situation a reasonable jury, after being properly . .

Cited by:

Cited – Wang, Regina v HL 10-Feb-2005
The appellant was waiting for a train when his bag was stolen. After a search, the thief tried to deter the appellant from calling the police by suggesting that the bag contained items the appellant should not be carrying. From the bag the appellant . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.188495

The defendant appealed against his conviction for sexual assault against a young girl. After the trial, she had made further allegations which were taken to suggest that the allegations were unreliable and exaggerated.
Held: It was clear that the child had been abused, but it was not possible to say that if the evidence now available had been before the court, the trial would have taken the same course. With some regret, the verdicts must be seen as unsafe, and were set aside.

Judges:

Lord Justice Potter Mr Justice Jack Mr Justice Cresswell

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Crim 3435

Links:

Bailii

Crime

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.188308

Citations:

[2003] EWHC 2583 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Crime

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.188315

Two defendants appealed in respect of alleged offences under common law of causing a public nuisance. One had sent race hatred material, and the other bomb hoaxes, through the post. Both claimed that the offence was so ill defined as to be an infringement of their rights.
Held: The offence of causing a public nuisance remained an offence at common law. The elements were set out clearly, and a person could so regulate his behaviour as not to commit the offence. It was therefore sufficiently certain not to be an infringement of the defendants’ rights. It was a proper and proportionate response to the need to provide against the acts complained of.

Judges:

Mr Justice Moses Lord Justice Latham Sir Edwin Jowitt

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Crim 3450, Times 17-Dec-2003, [2004] 1 WLR 2878, [2004] 1 Cr App R 388, [2004] 2 All ER 589, [2004] Crim LR 303

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Citing:

Cited – Attorney-General v PYA Quarries Ltd CA 1957
In a relator action, an injunction was sought to prevent the respondent from emitting quantities of dust from their quarry. The court had to decide what were the constituents of the offence of a public nuisance, and how this differed from a private . .
Cited – Director of Public Prosecution v Withers HL 20-Nov-1974
The House was asked to consider whether there existed the crime of a conspiracy to commit a public mischief.
Held: There was no such crime, since it was so undefined as to be unfair to any defendant. Although at common law no clear distinction . .
Cited – Regina v Shorrock CACD 1993
The defendants used land for an unauthorised ‘acid party’ which caused substantial inconvenience and disruption to neighbours. The defendant denied that he had had the requisite knowledge to be criminally liable.
Held: This was capable of . .
Cited – Regina v Johnson CACD 14-May-1996
The defendant had used public telephones to cause nuisance, annoyance, harassment, alarm and distress. He had made hundreds of obscene telephone calls to at least 13 women, and was convicted of causing a public nuisance. He argued that no call . .
Cited – Regina v Madden CACD 1975
The court considered an appeal against a conviction for causing a public nuisance by the making of bomb hoax telephone call to a steel works. The message was received by a telephonist, who informed the engineer and also the police. The police . .
Cited – The Sunday Times (No 1) v The United Kingdom ECHR 26-Apr-1979
Offence must be ;in accordance with law’
The court considered the meaning of the need for an offence to be ‘in accordance with law.’ The applicants did not argue that the expression prescribed by law required legislation in every case, but contended that legislation was required only where . .
Cited – Handyside v The United Kingdom ECHR 7-Dec-1976
Freedom of Expression is Fundamental to Society
The appellant had published a ‘Little Red Schoolbook’. He was convicted under the 1959 and 1964 Acts on the basis that the book was obscene, it tending to deprave and corrupt its target audience, children. The book claimed that it was intended to . .
Cited – X Ltd and Y Ltd v United Kingdom ECHR 1982
The Commission considered the common law offence of blasphemous libel as an offence defined under common law rather than statute law.
Held: ‘The Commission considers that the same principles also apply to the interpretation and application of . .
Cited – S and G v United Kingdom ECHR 2-Sep-1991
The Commission considered the common law offence of outraging public decency alleged to have been committed by an artist and art gallery curator who had exhibited a model with freeze dried human foetuses as earrings. Recognising that freedom of . .
Cited – Wingrove v The United Kingdom ECHR 25-Nov-1996
The applicant had been refused a certification certificate for his video ‘Visions of Ecstasy’ on the basis that it infringed the criminal law of blasphemy. The Court found that the offence was prescribed by law and served the legitimate aim of . .
Cited – Muller And Others v Switzerland ECHR 24-May-1988
The Court considered a complaint that Article 10 had been infringed by the applicant’s conviction of an offence of publishing obscene items, consisting of paintings which were said ‘mostly to offend the sense of sexual propriety of persons of . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Regina v Rimmington; Regina v Goldstein HL 21-Jul-2005
Common Law – Public Nuisance – Extent
The House considered the elements of the common law offence of public nuisance. One defendant faced accusations of having sent racially offensive materials to individuals. The second was accused of sending an envelope including salt to a friend as a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.188293

Citations:

[2003] EWHC 2512 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Crime

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.187623

The appellant appealed against his conviction for having a bladed article in a public place. Police called at his home, and the ensuing struggle came out into the garden where he was arrested. He was later found to have the knife in his pocket.
Held: The judge was wrong to treat the garden as a public place, despite Edwards. To do so would lead to inconsistencies, for example, where perhaps there was a fence, with different answers according to the height of the fence.

Judges:

Mr Justice Elias, Lord Justice Mantell, Mr Justice Jack

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Crim 2753, Times 05-Nov-2003, Gazette 20-Nov-2003, [2004] 1 WLR 181

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Justice Act 1988 139(7)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Edwards and Roberts CACD 1978
The defendant appealed against a conviction for having a knife in a public place. He had been in his front garden.
Held: Persons such as the postman or milkman who have an implied licence to enter the garden do so not as members of the public . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.186995

The defence of duress requires establishment of a reasonable belief. In judging the accused’s response the test is: ‘have the prosecution made the jury sure that a sober person of reasonable firmness, sharing the characteristics of the defendant, would not have responded to whatever he reasonably believed [the threatener] said or did by taking part in the offence.’
Lord Lane CJ said: ‘As a matter of public policy, it seems to us essential to limit the defence of duress by means of an objective criterion formulated in terms of reasonableness. Consistency of approach in defences to criminal liability is obviously desirable. Provocation and duress are analogous. In provocation the words or actions of one person break the self-control of another. In duress the words or actions of one person break the will of another. The law requires a defendant to have the self-control reasonably to be expected of the ordinary citizen in his situation. It should likewise require him to have the steadfastness reasonably to be expected of the ordinary-citizen in his situation. So too with self-defence, in which the law permits the use of no more force than is reasonable in the circumstances. And, in general, if a mistake is to excuse what would otherwise be criminal, the mistake must be a reasonable one. It follows that we accept counsel for the Crown’s submission that the direction in this case was too favourable to the appellant. The Crown having conceded that the issue of duress is open to the appellant and was raised on the evidence, the correct approach on the facts of this case would have been as follows: (1) Was the defendant, or may he have been, impelled to act as he did because, as a result of what he reasonably believed [another] had said or done, he had good cause to fear that if he did not so act [that other] would kill him, or (if this is to be added) cause him serious physical injury? (2) If so have the prosecution made the jury sure that a sober person of reasonable firmness, sharing the characteristics of this defendant, would not have responded to whatever he reasonably believed [that other] said or did by taking part in the killing? The fact that a defendant’s will to resist had been eroded by the voluntary consumption of drink or drugs or both is not relevant to that test.’

Judges:

Lord Lane CJ, Taylor and McCullough JJ

Citations:

[1982] 1 WLR 294, [1981] EWCA Crim 5, (1982) 74 Cr App R 235, [1982] 1 All ER 801

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Approved – Regina v Howe etc HL 19-Feb-1986
The defendants appealed against their convictions for murder, saying that their defences of duress had been wrongly disallowed.
Held: Duress is not a defence available on a charge of murder. When a defence of duress is raised, the test is . .
Cited – Regina v G and R HL 16-Oct-2003
The defendants, young boys, had set fire to paper and thrown the lit papers into a wheelie bin, expecting the fire to go out. In fact substantial damage was caused. The House was asked whether a conviction was proper under the section where the . .
Approved – Regina v Martin (Colin) CACD 29-Nov-1988
Defence of Necessity has a Place in Criminal Law
The defendant appealed against his conviction for driving whilst disqualified. He said he had felt obliged to drive his stepson to work because his stepson had overslept. His wife (who had suicidal tendencies) had been threatening suicide unless he . .
Cited – Hasan, Regina v HL 17-Mar-2005
The House was asked two questions: the meaning of ‘confession’ for the purposes of section 76(1) of the 1984 Act, and as to the defence of duress. The defendant had been involved in burglary, being told his family would be harmed if he refused. The . .
Cited – Regina v Conway CACD 28-Jul-1988
The defendant appealed against his conviction for reckless driving. He said the offence was committed out of necessity, since his passenger’s life was under threat.
Held: Necessity can only be a defence to a charge of reckless driving where . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.186844

The defendant appealed against his conviction for murder.
Held: The appeal was allowed and a conviction for manslaughter substituted.
Lord Bridge of Harwich discussed the case of Hyam: ‘But looking on their facts at the decided cases where a crime of specific intent was under consideration, including Hyam . . they suggest to me that the probability of the consequence taken to have been foreseen must be little short of overwhelming before it will suffice to establish the necessary intent.’ In the rare cases in which it might be necessary to direct a jury by reference to foresight of consequences it would be sufficient to ask two questions: ‘First, was death or really serious injury in a murder case (or whatever relevant consequence must be proved to have been intended in any other case) a natural consequence of the defendant’s voluntary act? Secondly, did the defendant foresee that consequence as being a natural consequence of his act? The jury should then be told that if they answer yes to both questions it is a proper inference for them to draw that he intended that consequence.’

Judges:

Lord Bridge of Harwich

Citations:

[1985] AC 905, [1984] UKHL 4, [1985] 1 All ER 1025, [1985] 2 WLR 648

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Narrowed – Regina v Hyam HL 1974
The defendant had burnt down the house of her rival in love, thereby killing her children. The judge directed the jury to convict the defendant of murder if she knew that it was highly probable that her act would cause death or serious bodily harm. . .
Cited – Woolmington v Director of Public Prosecutions HL 23-May-1935
Golden Thread of British Justice – Proof of Intent
The appellant had been convicted of the murder of his wife. She had left him and returned to live with her mother. He went to the house. He said he intended to frighten her that he would kill himself if she did not return. He wired a shotgun to . .

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Woollin HL 2-Apr-1998
The defendant appealed against his conviction for the murder of his child. He had thrown the child to the floor, hitting the head. He said that he had not intended to kill the child.
Held: On a murder charge, where the short direction on . .
Cited – Regina v Hancock and Shankland HL 27-Feb-1985
Two miners on strike had pushed a concrete block from a bridge onto a three-lane highway on which a miner was being taken to work by taxi. The concrete block hit the taxi and killed the driver. The defendants were charged with murder. They said they . .
Cited – Atkinson v Regina CACD 7-Nov-2003
The appellant had been convicted of false accounting in the making of false claims for payment for prescriptions, submitting forms which said that the patient was over 60 when she knew they were not. She said she filled the forms in mechanically. . .
Cited – James v Eastleigh Borough Council HL 14-Jun-1990
Result Decides Dscrimination not Motive
The Council had allowed free entry to its swimming pools to those of pensionable age (ie women of 60 and men of 65). A 61 year old man successfully complained of sexual discrimination.
Held: The 1975 Act directly discriminated between men and . .
Cited – Gnango, Regina v SC 14-Dec-2011
The prosecutor appealed against a successful appeal by the defendant against his conviction for murder. He and an opponent had engaged in a street battle using guns. His opponent had shot an innocent passer by. The court was now asked as to whether . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.186623

The defendant, a vagrant, fell asleep in an empty house. His lighted cigarette fell onto his mattress, and a fire started. Rather than put it out, he moved to another room. He was accused of arson.
Held: He was guilty. A defendant would be guilty even though he did not know he had started the fire. He was, in doing nothing about it, reckless as to what further damage would be caused. Lord Diplock said: ‘I see no rational ground for excluding from conduct capable of giving rise to criminal liability, conduct which consists of failing to take measures that lie within one’s power to counteract a danger that one has oneself created, if at the time of such conduct one’s state of mind is such as constitutes a necessary ingredient of the offence. I venture to think that the habit of lawyers to talk of actus reus, suggestive as it is of action rather than inaction, is responsible for any erroneous notion that failures to act cannot give rise to criminal liability in English Law.’

Judges:

Lord Diplock, Lord Keith of Kinkel, Lord Bridge of Harwich, Lord Brandon of Oakbrook and Lord Brightman

Citations:

[1983] 2 AC 161, [1983] 2 WLR 539, [1982] UKHL 6, [1983] 1 All ER 978

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Damage Act 1971 1(1)(3)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Applied – Regina v Lawrence (Stephen) HL 1981
The defendant had ridden a motor-cycle and hit a pedestrian. The court asked whether he had been reckless.
Held: The House understood recklessness as ‘a state of mind stopping short of deliberate intention, and going beyond mere inadvertence’ . .
Applied – Commissioner of Police v Caldwell HL 19-Mar-1981
The defendant got drunk and set fire to the hotel where he worked. Guests were present. He was indicted upon two counts of arson. He pleaded guilty to the 1(1) count but contested the 1(2) charge, saying he was so drunk that the thought there might . .

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v G and R HL 16-Oct-2003
The defendants, young boys, had set fire to paper and thrown the lit papers into a wheelie bin, expecting the fire to go out. In fact substantial damage was caused. The House was asked whether a conviction was proper under the section where the . .
Cited – Elliott v C 1983
A 14-year old girl of low intelligence entered a shed, poured white spirit on the floor and set it alight. The fire destroyed the shed after she left. The allegation was that she was reckless. The justices applied Caldwell but inferred that in his . .
Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions v Santa-Bermudez Admn 13-Nov-2003
The prosecutor appealed a finding of no case to answer on an accusation of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The victim, a police officer, was searching the pockets of an arrested person, when she was injured by a hypodermic needle. She had . .
Cited – Evans (Gemma), Regina v CACD 2-Apr-2009
The applicant appealed against her conviction for gross negligence manslaughter. Her half sister had died of a heroin overdose. Instead of calling for assistance when she had complained, the defendant and her mother had put the deceased to bed . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.186788

Refusal of ASBO – anti-social behaviour order – prostitute.

Citations:

[2003] EWHC 74 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

See Also – The Chief Constable of Lancashire v Potter Admn 13-Oct-2003
The claimant appealed refusal of an Anti-Social Behaviour order by the magistrates. The respondent was a street prostitute in Preston. The magistrates had declined to aggregate her behaviour with that of others to find that it caused harrassment . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.184930

Citations:

[2018] EWCA Crim 2191

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Crime

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.628192

The defendant appealed against his firearms and drugs convictions.
Held: the appeal was allowed, relying on material contained within a confidential annex to the report of the Criminal Cases Review Commission. Matters now known would have cast doubt on the integrity of the police case, and fuller disclosure would have been ordered, and that, the prosecution no douubt being reluctant to reveal its source would have discontinued the prosecution.

Judges:

Lord Justice Kennedy Mr Justice Pitchers Sir Michael Wright

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Crim 1502

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Crime

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.183068

M was stopped by the police. They found cannabis in his car. He said he was looking after it for a friend. He was accused of intending to supply it.
Held: ‘The word ‘supply’ in its ordinary natural meaning conveys the idea of furnishing or providing to another something which is wanted or required in order to meet the wants or requirements of that other. It connotes more than the mere transfer of physical control of some chattel or object from one person to another. No one would ordinarily say that to hand over something to a mere custodier was to supply him with it. The additional concept is that of enabling the recipient to apply the thing handed over to purposes for which he desires or has a duty to apply it.’ and ‘If a trafficker in controlled drug sets up a store of these in the custody of a friend whom he thinks unlikely to attract the suspicions of the police, and later draws on the store for the purposes of his trade, or for his own use, the custodier is in my opinion rightly to be regarded as supplying him with drugs.’

Judges:

Lord Keith of Kinkel

Citations:

[1987] AC 303, [1987] UKHL 4, (1987) 85 Cr App R 127, [1987] 1 All ER 907, [1987] 2 WLR 765

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Panton CACD 27-Mar-2001
In the supply of drugs, rather than possession, the defendant asserted that his consent to acting to take care of the drugs, was given only under duress. Consent was not required of both parties. Supply was to be given its ordinary meaning, and . .
Cited – Interfact Ltd and Another v Liverpool City Council Admn 23-May-2005
The defendants, operators of licensed sex shops, appealed convictions for offences under the Act. The shops had supplied videos rated R*18 by mail order from the shops. The Trading Standards Officer said this did not satisfy the requirement that . .
Cited – Regina v Hussain, S CACD 28-Jan-2010
The defendant appealed against conviction for possession of controlled substances with intent to supply. He said that he had imported the substances (Class C controlled drugs and counterfeit medecines) but had intended to supply them overseas only. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.182861

The court considered the direction to be given as to the existence of provocation so as to reduce a charge of murder to one of manslaughter. The reasonable man in the definition should be one with the defendant’s mental condition. ‘The judge should state what the question is using the very terms of the section. He should then explain to them that the reasonable man referred to in the question is a person having the power of self-control to be expected of an ordinary person of the sex and age of the accused, but in other respects sharing such of the accused’s characteristics as they think would affect the gravity of the provocation to him; and that the question is not merely whether such a person would in like circumstances be provoked to lose his self-control but also whether he would react to the provocation as the accused did.’
The section was intended to mitigate in some degree ‘the harshness of the common law of provocation as it had been developed in recent decisions in this House.’
A reasonable man: ‘means an ordinary person of either sex, not exceptionally excitable or pugnacious, but possessed of such powers of self control as everyone is entitled to expect that his fellow citizens will exercise in society as it is today.’ It would stultify much of the mitigation of the previous harshness of the common law in ruling out verbal provocation as capable of reducing murder to manslaughter if the jury could not take into consideration all those factors which in their opinion would affect the gravity of taunts or insults when applied to the person whom they are addressed. So to this extent at any rate the unqualified proposition accepted by this House in Bedder v. Director of Public Prosecutions [1954] 1 W.L.R. 1119 that for the purposes of the ‘reasonable man’ test any unusual physical characteristics of the accused must be ignored requires revision as a result of the passing of the Act of 1957.’ As to why it would be wrong not to allow for the youth of the defendant: ‘It was because: ‘So to direct them was to impose a fetter on the right and duty of the jury which the Act accords to them to act upon their own opinion on the matter.’ This, in my view, goes to the heart of the matter and is in accordance with the analysis of the effect of section 3 which I have made earlier in my speech. The jury is entitled to act upon its own opinion of whether the objective element of provocation has been satisfied and the judge is not entitled to tell them that for this purpose the law requires them to exclude from consideration any of the circumstances or characteristics of the accused.’

Judges:

Lord Diplock, Lord Simon of Glaisdale

Citations:

[1978] AC 705, [1978] 2 All ER 168, [1978] UKHL 2

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Homicide Act 1957 3

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Pearce CACD 11-Dec-2001
The defendant appealed against his conviction for murder. He said that the court had not allowed his alcoholism as a characteristic for the purposes of testing the defence of provocation, and that the evidence of his long standing partner should be . .
Applied – Regina v Morhall HL 21-Jul-1995
The defendant was a glue sniffer. He had been taunted, and eventually attacked one of those villifying him. The judge excluded from the jury that the characteristics he suffered as a glue sniffer which might affect his response to provocation.
Cited – Arleigh Hector James v The Queen PC 22-Mar-1999
PC (Barbados) The defendant appealed his conviction for murder. He claimed provocation. He had a history of mental illness.
Held: Though the judge had failed to give a satisfactory direction with regard to . .
Cited – Regina v Smith (Morgan James) HL 27-Jul-2000
The defendant had sought to rely upon the defence of provocation. He had suffered serious clinical depression.
Held: When directing a jury on the law of provocation, it was no longer appropriate to direct the jury to disregard any particular . .
Cited – Regina v Rowland CACD 12-Dec-2003
The appellant had been convicted of murder. He sought to have substituted a conviction for manslaughter following Smith, and in the light of evidence as to his mental characteristics.
Held: ‘in the context of the law of provocation, the . .
Cited – Weller, Regina v CACD 26-Mar-2003
The defendant appealed against his conviction for murder, saying that provocation should have been found. The issue was whether or not, in the course of his summing-up, the trial judge should have left, and if so whether he had left, to the jury the . .
Cited – Ruth Ellis v Regina CACD 8-Dec-2003
In 1955, the deceased defendant was convicted of murder, and later hanged. The court considerd a post mortem appeal by the CRCC and her family. It was suggested that she should have been found guilty of manslaughter having been provoked by the . .
Cited – John Cochrane v Her Majesty’s Advocate HCJ 13-Jun-2001
. .
Cited – Her Majestys Attorney General for Jersey v Holley PC 15-Jun-2005
(Jersey) The defendant appealed his conviction for murder, claiming a misdirection on the law of provocation. A chronic alcoholic, he had admitted killing his girlfriend with an axe. Nine law lords convened to seek to reconcile conflicting decisions . .
Followed – Luc Thiet Thuan v The Queen PC 2-Apr-1996
(Hong Kong) On a trial for murder the defendant relied on the defences of diminished responsibility and provocation. Medical evidence showed the defendant suffered from brain damage and was prone to respond to minor provocation by losing his . .
Cited – James, Regina v; Regina v Karimi CACD 25-Jan-2006
The defendants appealed their convictions for murder, saying that the court had not properly guided the jury on provocation. The court was faced with apparently conflicting decision of the House of Lords (Smith) and the Privy Council (Holley).
Cited – Regina v Parker CACD 25-Feb-1997
The defendant appealed his conviction for murder, saying that his defence of provocation should have been left for the jury.
Held: Not following Luc, it was open to admit relevant evidence on the defendant’s capacity for self-control. Having . .
Cited – Adolphus Campbell v The State PC 20-Aug-1999
PC (Trinidad and Tobago) The defendant appealed his conviction for murder. The Board considered whether the Court of Appeal should consider additional medical evidence. He was said to have attacked the deceased, . .
Cited – Mohammed, Regina v CACD 13-Jul-2005
The court granted permission to appeal against a conviction for murder on grounds that related to the judge’s summing up in respect of provocation: ‘Although Holley is a decision of the Privy Council and Morgan Smith a decision of the House of . .
Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions v Nelson PC 16-Feb-2015
Court of Appeal of the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court (Antigua and Barbuda) Both prosecutor and dfeendant appealed against a decision of the remitting court to substitute a conviction for manslaughter for an original conviction for murer. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.182387

The defendant was attacked by his victim, and he hit his victim in the face. He was charged with wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm with an alternative of unlawful wounding also open to the jury. The judge gave no direction on the meaning of ‘maliciously’ and the jury convicted under section 20. The defendant’s appeal against conviction on the ground of this non-direction failed.
Held: Following Cunningham, ‘maliciously in a statutory crime postulates foresight of consequence’, but the court regarded Professor Kenny’s more general statement as inapposite to the specific alternative statutory offences described in sections 18 and 20. ‘Maliciously’ imports an awareness that an act may have the consequence of causing some physical harm to some other person, even if the harm foreseen was relatively minor. ‘But where the evidence for the prosecution, if accepted, shows that the physical act of the accused which caused the injury to another person was a direct assault which any ordinary person would be bound to realise was likely to cause some physical harm to the other person (as, for instance, an assault with a weapon or the boot or violence with the hands) and the defence put forward on behalf of the accused is not that the assault was accidental or that he did not realise that it might cause some physical harm to the victim, but is some other defence such as that he did not do the alleged act or that he did it in self-defence, it is unnecessary to deal specifically in the summing-up with what is meant by the word ‘maliciously’ in the section . . In the absence of any evidence that the accused did not realise that it was a possible consequence of his act that some physical harm might be caused to the victim, the prosecution satisfy the relevant onus by proving the commission by the accused of an act which any ordinary person would realise was likely to have that consequence . . ‘

Judges:

Diplock LJ, Brabin and Waller JJ

Citations:

[1967] 3 All ER 47 CA, [1967] 3 WLR 1192, [1968] 1 QB 421, [1967] EWCA Crim 1

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Offences against the Person Act 1861 18 20

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Cunningham CCA 1957
Specific Intention as to Damage Caused
(Court of Criminal Appeal) The defendant wrenched a gas meter from the wall to steal it. Gas escaped. He was charged with unlawfully and maliciously causing a noxious thing, namely coal gas, to be taken by the victim.
Held: Byrne J said: ‘We . .

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Brown (Anthony); Regina v Lucas; etc HL 11-Mar-1993
The appellants had been convicted of assault, after having engaged in consensual acts of sado-masochism in which they inflicted varying degreees of physical self harm. They had pleaded guilty after a ruling that the prosecution had not needed to . .
Cited – Regina v G and R HL 16-Oct-2003
The defendants, young boys, had set fire to paper and thrown the lit papers into a wheelie bin, expecting the fire to go out. In fact substantial damage was caused. The House was asked whether a conviction was proper under the section where the . .
Cited – Jones v First Tier Tribunal and Another SC 17-Apr-2013
The claimant had been injured when a lorry driver swerved to avoid hitting a man who stood in his path. He said that the deceased’s act of suicide amounted to an offence of violence under the 1861 Act so as to bring his own claim within the 2001 . .
Cited – Regina v Barnes CACD 21-Dec-2004
The defendant appealed against a conviction for inflicting grievous bodily harm, after causing a serious leg injury in a football match when tackling another player.
Held: There was surprisingly little authority on when it was appropriate to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.182258

(Summer Assizes, 1860) The prisoner was indicted for the manslaughter of Reginald Cancellor. The prisoner was a schoolmaster at Eastbourne, and in 1859 the deceased, a boy aged thirteen or fourteen, had been entrusted to his charge. He was a dull boy. At Christmas there were some complaints of chastisement inflicted on him by the prisoner. He returned to school, however, after the holidays, and again at Easter on the 16th April.
Held: A parent or someone to whom the parent has delegated authority may inflict physical hurt on his or her child, provided that it does not go too far, and is for the purpose of correction and not the gratification of passion or rage.

Citations:

175 ER 1024, (1860) 2 FandF 202, [1860] EWCC J42, [1860] EngR 191 (B), [1860] EW Misc J73, (1860) 2 FandF 202

Links:

Bailii, Commonlii, Bailii

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Brown (Anthony); Regina v Lucas; etc HL 11-Mar-1993
The appellants had been convicted of assault, after having engaged in consensual acts of sado-masochism in which they inflicted varying degreees of physical self harm. They had pleaded guilty after a ruling that the prosecution had not needed to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.182078

Citations:

[2002] ScotHC 4, [2002] ScotHC 4

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Crime

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.181656

(Hong kong) The court considered the need at common law to show mens rea. A Hong Kong Building Ordinance created offences of strict liability in pursuit of public safety which strict liability was calculated to promote.
Held: Lord Scarman summarised the principles: ‘(1) there is a presumption of law that mens rea is required before a person can be held guilty of a criminal offence; (2) the presumption is particularly strong where the offence is ‘truly criminal’ in character; (3) the presumption applies to statutory offences, and can be displaced only if this is clearly or by necessary implication the effect of the statute; (4) the only situation in which the presumption can be displaced is where the statute is concerned with an issue of social concern, and public safety is such an issue; (5) even where a statute is concerned with such an issue, the presumption of mens rea stands unless it can also be shown that the creation of strict liability will be effective to promote the objects of the statute by encouraging greater vigilance to prevent the commission of the prohibited act.’

Judges:

Lord Scarman

Citations:

(1985) 1 AC 14, [1984] 2 All ER 503, [1984] UKPC 17, (1985) 80 Cr App R 194, (1984) 81 LSG 1993, (1984) 26 BLR 159, [1984] Crim LR 479

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Commonwealth

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Muhamad CACD 19-Jul-2002
The appellant had been convicted of an offence under the section in that as a bankrupt, he ‘in the two years before the petition, materially contributed to, or increased the extent of, his insolvency by gambling or by rash and hazardous . .
Cited – Regina v Blake CACD 31-Jul-1996
The offence of establishing a radio station without a licence is an absolute offence; no knowledge or mens rea was needed. The presumption that mens rea was required could be rebutted where the offence concerned an issue of public safety. . .
Cited – B (A Minor) v Director of Public Prosecutions HL 23-Feb-2000
Prosecution to prove absence of genuine belief
To convict a defendant under the 1960 Act, the prosecution had the burden of proving the absence of a genuine belief in the defendant’s mind that the victim was 14 or over. The Act itself said nothing about any mental element, so the assumption must . .
Cited – Regina v K HL 25-Jul-2001
In a prosecution for an offence of indecent assault on a girl under 16 under the section, it was necessary for the prosecution to prove the absence of a positive belief in the defendant’s mind that the victim was 16 or over. The legislation history . .
Cited – Jackson v Regina CMAC 17-Oct-2006
The defendant appealed his conviction for unawful low flying, having hit a tower when flying below 100 feet.
Held: The offence was one of strict liability with only certain exceptions. ‘The reason that those subject to military law find . .
Cited – Ezeemo and Others v Regina CACD 16-Oct-2012
The defendants had been charged with offences relating to their intended transporting of waste materials to Nigeria. They appealed, complaining that the judge had directed that the offence under regulation 23 was an offence of strict liability.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.180878

Appeal against convictions for indecent assaults and rape of a child. He said that the judge had interfered in the presenttaion of his defence.
Held: ‘ the judge’s interventions and comments may have had the effect of bolstering V’s evidence at the expense of the appellant and his witnesses. In particular, the jury may well have been led to believe that the judge thought little of the defence. The summing up failed to compensate for any of these matters and is open to positive objections. We accordingly take the view that the convictions are indeed unsafe and must be quashed.’

Judges:

Mance LJ, Collins J, Zucker QC HHJ

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Crim 907

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Crime

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.180749

The defendant appealed against his conviction for manslaughter. Both the deceased and the defendant had injected themselves with syringes prepared by D. The judge directed the jury that the self-injection of the heroin by the deceased was an unlawful act and that it followed that aiding and abetting such an offence made Dias criminally liable as a secondary party for that unlawful act which had resulted in death. The trial judge directed the jury to ask themselves whether they were sure ‘that the defendant assisted and deliberately encouraged (the deceased) to take the heroin.’
Held: It was not possible to rely on the unlawful supply of the heroin because ‘the chain of causation was probably broken by (the) intervening act of the deceased injecting himself’.
The court saw no effective distinction between the Dalby and Kennedy cases. For manslaughter purposes, the unlawful act was ‘essentially the injection of the heroin rather than the possession of it’. The defendant could only have been guilty of manslaughter as a secondary party and not as a principal. If that was the position, then ‘who [was] the principal of manslaughter?’ As there was no offence of self-manslaughter, the court considered it was difficult to see how the defendant could be guilty of that offence as a secondary party merely because he encouraged or assisted the deceased to inject himself with the drug. The appeal was, therefore, allowed

Judges:

Lord Justice Keene

Citations:

[2002] 2 Cr App R 96, [2001] EWCA Crim 2986, [2001] All ER (D) 198

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Applied – Regina v Kennedy CACD 31-Jul-1998
The defendant was convicted of manslaughter having handed a loaded a syringe with heroin and handed it to a friend who injected himself, and later died.
Held: The defendant had gone beyond the minimum necessary for criminal liability. All it . .
Cited – Regina v Dalby CACD 1982
Dalby and O’Such were drug addicts. Dalby had obtained 32 tablets of Diconal lawfully. Dalby supplied O’Such with some tablets and probably certain further tablets during the evening. Each injected himself intravenously and they then went out . .

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Rogers CACD 14-Mar-2003
The defendant appealed a conviction for manslaughter and assault under the 1861 Act. He held a belt around a friend’s arm whilst the friend injected heroin into his own vein. The friend later died from the overdose. He said the use of the tourniquet . .
Cited – Kennedy v Regina CACD 17-Mar-2005
The court considered when it was appropriate to find someone guilty of manslaughter where that person has been involved in the supply of a Class A controlled drug, which is then self administered by the person to whom it is supplied, and the . .
Cited – Regina v Kennedy HL 17-Oct-2007
The defendant had been convicted of manslaughter. He had supplied a class A drug to a friend who then died taking it. The House was asked ‘When is it appropriate to find someone guilty of manslaughter where that person has been involved in the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.180388

Judges:

Lord Justice Kennedy Mr. Justice Crane Mr Justice Mccombe

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Crim 693

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Crime

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.179916

The House considered the availability of duress as a defence on a charge of aiding and abetting murder. Referring to the basic elements of criminal liability, mens rea and actus reus: ‘Both terms have, however, justified themselves by their usefulness; and I shall myself employ them in their traditional senses – namely, actus reus to mean such conduct as constitutes a crime if the mental element involved in the definition of the crime is also present (or, more shortly, conduct prohibited by law); and mens rea to mean such mental element, over and above volition, as is involved in the definition of the crime.’
As to whether defences of accident or mistake or self-defence could be raised under s.4A(2), although they almost invariably involve some consideration of the mental state of the defendant and on the s.4A(2) determination the defendant’s state of mind was not to be considered.
Lord Hutton said: ‘How then is this difficulty to be resolved? I would hold that it should be resolved in this way. If there is objective evidence which raises the issue of mistake or accident or self-defence, then the jury should not find that the defendant did the ‘act’ unless it is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt on all the evidence that the prosecution has negatived that defence’ and
‘The defence of provocation to a charge of murder is only relevant when the jury are satisfied that the defendant had the requisite mens rea for murder, and I wish to reserve my opinion on the question of whether, on a determination under s.4A(2), it would be open to the defence to call witnesses to raise the issue of provocation’
Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest said: ‘it is proper that any rational system of law should take fully into account the standards of honest and reasonable men. By those standards it is fair that actions and reactions may be tested.’ Lord Simon of Glaisdale ‘A sane system of criminal justice does not permit a subject to set up a countervailing system of sanctions or by terrorism to confer criminal immunity on his gang.’ and
‘If in the present case the jury were satisfied that the car was driven towards the garage in pursuance of a murderous plan and that the appellant knew that that was the plan and intentionally drove the car in execution of that plan, he could be held to have aided an abetted even though he regretted the plan or indeed was horrified by it. However great his reluctance, he would have intended to aid and abet.’

Judges:

Lord Simon of Glaisdale, Lord Hutton, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest

Citations:

[1975] AC 653, [1975] 1 All ER 913, [1975] UKHL 5

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964 4(A2)

Jurisdiction:

Northern Ireland

Cited by:

Cited – The Coca-Cola Company and Another v Cengiz Aytacli and others ChD 30-Jan-2003
The claimant having succeeded in an action against the defendants, now sought an order for their committal for contempt, accusing them of having given false evidence, and of having failed to comply with court orders made. The defendant asserted a . .
Overruled – Regina v Howe etc HL 19-Feb-1986
The defendants appealed against their convictions for murder, saying that their defences of duress had been wrongly disallowed.
Held: Duress is not a defence available on a charge of murder. When a defence of duress is raised, the test is . .
Cited – Al-Ameri v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea; Osmani v London Borough of Harrow (Conjoined Appeals) HL 5-Feb-2004
The applicants had been asylum seekers, and obliged to live in Glasgow. Upon losing their asylum claim, but being given exceptional leave to remain, they sought to be rehoused by the appellants. The appellants had said that the applicants having . .
Cited – In Re A (Minors) (Conjoined Twins: Medical Treatment); aka In re A (Children) (Conjoined Twins: Surgical Separation) CA 22-Sep-2000
Twins were conjoined (Siamese). Medically, both could not survive, and one was dependent upon the vital organs of the other. Doctors applied for permission to separate the twins which would be followed by the inevitable death of one of them. The . .
Cited – Hasan, Regina v HL 17-Mar-2005
The House was asked two questions: the meaning of ‘confession’ for the purposes of section 76(1) of the 1984 Act, and as to the defence of duress. The defendant had been involved in burglary, being told his family would be harmed if he refused. The . .
Cited – Regina v Bryce CACD 18-May-2004
The defendant said that his involvement in the murder of which he had been convicted had been secondary only. He was alleged to have transported the killer and the gun which he used to commit the murder to a caravan near the victim’s home so that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.179892