Brown directions Rarely Required
The defendant appealed saying that a Brown direction should have been given.
Held: Brown directions were required in fairly rare situations. When the individual particulars were not said to be coterminous with an essential element or ingredient of the offence and when the individual particulars did not involve different defences, a Brown direction was unnecessary It was confined to those cases where: (i) there was an appreciable danger that, in deciding whether they were agreed on the matter that constituted the relevant ingredient, some of the jury might convict having found a particular matter proved as constituting the ingredient while others might find a wholly different matter or different matters proved as constituting the ingredient. When the factual bases of the crime charged were, in reality, individually coterminous with an essential element or ingredient of the offence, then it appeared necessary for a Brown direction to be given. (ii) Two distinct events or incidents were alleged, either of which constituted the ingredient of the offence charged. (iii) Two different means of committing the offence might give rise to different defences.
Fulford LJ, Goose J, Sir Roderick Evans
 EWCA Crim 1311,  WLR(D) 473
Serious Crime Act 2015 76
England and Wales
Cited – Regina v Brown (K) CACD 1984
Jury Directions: Common Element in Several Charges
The defendant was accused of fraudulently inducing the investment of money. inducing four people to acquire shares in a company by making misleading statements. The particulars given in the count identified five statements allegedly made by him in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.668294