The defendant complained that the judge had not left an alternate verdict of careless driving to the jury where he had been charged with driving a motor vehicle on the road recklessly.
Held: The conviction was quashed.
Mustill LJ said: ‘These cases bear out the conclusion, which we should in any event have reached, that the judge is obliged to leave the lesser alternative only if this is necessary in the interests of justice. Such interests will never be served in a situation where the lesser verdict simply does not arise on the way in which the case has been presented to the Court: for example if the defence has never sought to deny that the full offence charged has been committed but challenges that it was committed by the defendant. Again there may be instances where there was at one stage a question which would, if pursued, have left open the possibility of a lesser verdict, but which, in the light of the way the trial has developed, has simply ceased to be a live issue. In these and other situations it would only be harmful to confuse the jury by advising them of the possibility of a verdict which could make no sense.
We can also envisage cases where the principal offence is so grave and the alternative so trifling, that the judge thinks it best not to distract the jury by forcing them to consider something which is remote from the real point of the case: and this may be so particularly where there are already a series of realistic alternatives which call for careful handling by judge and jury, and where the possibility of convicting for a trivial offence would be an unnecessary further complication.
On the other hand the interests of justice will sometimes demand that the lesser alternatives are left to the jury. It must be remembered that justice serves the interests of the public as well as those of the defendant, and if the evidence is such that he ought at least to be convicted of the lesser offence, it would be wrong for him to be acquitted altogether merely because the jury cannot be sure that he was guilty of the greater.’
Judges:
Mustill LJ, Hodgson and Wood JJ
Citations:
[1986] 1 WLR 1202, (1986) 83 Cr App R 251
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Rex v Parrott 1913
Phillimore J considered the possibility of allowing a conviction for a lesser offence than that charged and said: ‘There may be cases where, in the interests of the prisoner, a judge ought to do so; there are certainly many cases where the interests . .
Cited by:
Cited – Sutton London Borough Council v S and Another QBD 26-Oct-2004
Parents had had charges brought against them by the appellant for failing to ensure the attendance of their child at school dismissed. The authority appealed.
Held: The authority should have considered more carefully whether it was appropriate . .
Reviewed – Regina v Maxwell HL 1990
The defendant had hired two men to enter his former partner’s house to commit robbery. It was his defence that he did not contemplate violence, and that he was only guilty of the offence of burglary. The prosecution would not add a count of burglary . .
Cited – Regina v Maxwell CACD 1988
The defendant admitted paying two others to burgle his partner’s home, but said he had not anticipated violence, and appealed against his conviction for robbery, saying the judge should have left the alternative verdict to the jury. The jury, during . .
Cited – Coutts, Regina v CACD 21-Jan-2005
The defendant appealed his conviction for murder, saying that the judge should have left to the jury the alternative conviction for manslaughter. The victim had died through strangulation during a sexual assault by the defendant. He said it had not . .
Cited – Regina v Coutts HL 19-Jul-2006
The defendant was convicted of murder. Evidence during the trial suggested a possibility of manslaughter, but neither the defence nor prosecution proposed the alternate verdict. The defendant now appealed saying that the judge had an independent . .
Cited – London Borough of Sutton v S Admn 26-Oct-2004
The Borough appealed against acquittal by the magistrates of the defendant parent accused of failure to ensure the regular attendance of their child at school. The child had attended only irregularly. The parents had contacted the school and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Practice
Updated: 30 April 2022; Ref: scu.220041