The House of Lords may itself determine the grounds of an appeal, and deal with matters undetermined by Court of Appeal. A verdict of ‘causing GBH’ (not inflicting) was not an offence unknown to law. A verdict of ‘causing GBH contrary to s20’ was wide enough to include the offence of inflicting grievous bodily harm.
In the context of considering the position if one or more grounds of appeal are left unresolved by the Court of Appeal, Lord Mackay of Clashfern LC: ‘It is often the case that a number of grounds of appeal are urged before the Court of Appeal but having reached a clear conclusion upon one which determines the case, the Court of Appeal do not decide the other grounds since such decision is unnecessary to the disposal of the case on the view they have taken of it. It would obviously be highly undesirable and wasteful to require the Court of Appeal in every case to decide all the grounds of appeal before disposing of an appeal before them, on the basis that if a point of law of general public importance is raised in the appeal the House of Lords may take a different view of the point from that taken by the Court of Appeal if leave to appeal to the House of Lords is granted in respect of the decision.’
Lord Mackay of Clashfern LC
Gazette 22-Jun-1994, Independent 20-May-1994, Times 20-May-1994,  1 AC 208
Offences Against the Person Act 1861 20, Criminal Appeal Act 1968
England and Wales
Applied – Regina v Savage; Director of Public Prosecutions v Parmenter HL 7-Nov-1991
The first defendant had been convicted of wounding. She had intended to throw beer over her victim, but her glass slipped from her hand, and cut the victim. The second defendant threw his three year old child in the air and caught him, not realising . .
Cited – Regina v Kingston HL 22-Jul-1994
Involuntary Intoxication not a General Defence
The prosecutor appealed an acquittal on appeal of the defendant for sexual assault, saying that he had not had the necessary intent because of intoxication through drink and drugs. He said that a co-defendant had secretly administered drugs to him. . .
Cited – Hamilton and Others v Post Office Ltd CACD 15-Jan-2021
Good Reason to Pursue Second Appeal
The appellants had been convicted of fraud against the Post Office. The Criminal Cases Review Commission referred their convictions on two grounds, namely abuse of process for the inability to provide a fair trial, and that the trial was an affront . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 24 March 2021; Ref: scu.87267