The defendant appealed her conviction inter alia for kidnapping. The victim had been taken and brought to a car she drove, then taken out and severely assaulted. She said that the offence of kidnapping had been complete when he was brought to the car, and she was not aware of the duress.
Held: (a) kidnapping is a continuing offence; and (b) a person could be jointly liable for the offence if he joins the enterprise after the victim has been taken or carried away, but whilst the victim remains unlawfully confined. All that had to be proved was a deprivation of liberty and carrying away from the place where the victim wished to be. That definition, approach, and construction of the serious offence of kidnapping – which was a more aggravated offence than false imprisonment because it involved not simply the restraint on a person’s liberty but the carrying away by one person of another – made sense on the facts of the case.
The case against the appellant on Count 1 was that she was part of a joint enterprise kidnap from the outset, and we do not accept Ms Hobson’s submissions to the contrary.
Dame Victoria Sharp P, Sweeney, Foxton JJ
[2021] EWCA Crim 1157, [2021] WLR(D) 439
Bailii, WLRD
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Reid CACD 1972
The appellant had been convicted of the common law offence of kidnapping. He had gone to the address where his wife was living, held a knife to her throat and threatened to kill her unless she returned to live with him. Out of fear of the . .
Cited – Regina v D HL 1984
D was convicted for kidnapping his 5-year old daughter, a ward of court, who was in the care and control of her mother. The CA held that there was no such offence as the kidnapping of a child under 14, that it could not be committed by a parent, and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 12 October 2021; Ref: scu.668379
