Regina v Shanks: CACD 19 Mar 2003

The appellant appealed his conviction for murder. He had shot his lover as she walked away from an argument. The fact of his conviction following mention of a guilty plea to possession of the firearm was complained of.
Held: The judge had directed the jury properly as to the conviction for possession of a firearm with intent: ‘the Judge dealt with the matter fairly, correctly identifying the precise charge of which the first jury had convicted the appellant and its relevance to the issue of the appellant’s intent when he set out to find Miss Fletcher on the day that he killed her. He also submitted that the prosecution’s case and evidence as to intent at the material time were overwhelming, instancing: the appellant’s careful and deliberate preparation of the rifle for use, his stowage of it in the boot of his car, his conduct and movements preceding his final fatal confrontation with Miss Fletcher, his deliberate and well-aimed shooting of her in two separate bursts of fire and his conduct afterwards. ‘


Lord Justice Auld Mr Justice Crane The Hon Mr Justice Gray


[2003] EWCA Crim 680




Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 74(3)


England and Wales


CitedRegina v Bentham and Others 1973
Whether possession of a firearm with intent to endanger life was a continuing offence: ‘The mischief at which the Section is aimed must be that of a person possessing a firearm ready for use, if and when the occasion arises, in a manner which . .
CitedRegina v Harris CACD 19-Apr-2000
The purpose of section 74(3) was ‘not to define or enlarge the circumstances in which evidence is admissible of the fact that an accused has committed an offence, but simply to assist in the mode of proof of that fact (which it does in section 75): . .
CitedRegina v Robertson and Golder CACD 1987
The court considered the words ‘any issue in those proceedings’ as contained in the section.
Held: The provision should be used only sparingly. . .
CitedRegina v Kempster CACD 1990
Staughton LJ discussed the admission against a defendant of the fact of a co-defendant’s conviction: ‘On the more general question whether, if objection had been taken under section 78, the evidence should have been excluded, we have paid particular . .
CitedDirector of Public Prosecutions v Humphrys HL 1977
Humphrys was charged with driving while disqualified. The issue was the correctness of the identification by a police constable. In evidence, Humphrys denied that he was the driver, or indeed that he had driven any car during the year in question. . .
See AlsoRegina v Thomas Shanks Admn 13-Jan-1999
Admission of classified Ministry of Defence documents. . .
CitedRegina v Clarke CACD 30-Jan-1995
There were no special rules for the admission of evidence by computerised facial mapping. The ultimate gatekeepers on the admission of evidence of previous convictions are the rules on similar fact evidence. . .
CitedRegina v Hillier and Farrar CACD 1993
The defendant in question had not give evidence.
Held: The correct approach to be followed by the judge was: ‘What the jury needed to be reminded of in his defence was relevant matter contained in his pre-trial statements and interviews with . .
CitedHunter v Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police HL 19-Nov-1981
No collateral attack on Jury findigs.
An attempt was made to open up in a civil action, allegations of assaults by the police prior to the making of confessions which had been disposed of in a voir dire in the course of a criminal trial. The plaintiffs had imprisoned having spent many . .
CitedDirector of Public Prosecutions v P HL 1991
The defendant faced specimen counts of rape and incest against each of his two daughters. The trial judge refused an application for separate trials in respect of the offences alleged against each daughter. The defendant was convicted.
Held: . .

Cited by:

See AlsoRegina v Thomas Shanks Admn 13-Jan-1999
Admission of classified Ministry of Defence documents. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 09 November 2022; Ref: scu.180335