View examples of our professional work here. Provocation was not a defence raised by the appellant and the trial judge did The trial judge did not refer to the medical evidence in directing the jury on the issue of provocation and whether the organic brain problem could be taken into account in assessing whether a reasonable man would have done as the defendant did. Did the victims refusal to accept medical treatment constitute a novus actus interveniens and so break the chain of causation between the defendants act and her death? Matthews was born on April 1, 1982 and was 17. Trying to impress his friends, D , who had martial arts training, showed them how close he could kick to a plate glass shop window. The judge considered that there was time for reflection and cooling-off between the appellants knowledge of the threats and the carrying out the shooting. After Lord Steyn's judgment in R v Woollin [8] (affirmed in R v Matthews & Alleyne [2004]) it is clear that, based on R v Moloney, foresight of death or grievous bodily harm as a mere probability is insufficient. As Diplock LJ commented: It is quite unnecessary that the accused should have foreseen that his unlawful act might cause physical harm of the gravity described in the Section, i.e. D, who was suffering from an adjustment disorder in the form of depressed grief reaction to the death of his aunt, was upset by Vs disrespectful behavior. The Court of Appeal rejected the appeal holding that The grievous bodily harm need not be permanent, but it must be serious, and it is serious or grievous if it is such as seriously and grievously to interfere with the health and comfort of the victim. When the appeal came before the court the judge questioned whether the facts as stated could give grounds for a conviction and referred an appeal against conviction. The doctors inserted a tracheotomy tube, which remained in place for four weeks and initially improved the victims condition. our website you agree to our privacy policy and terms. Decision Newport Pagnell. A. Matthews, Lincolnshire Regiment, a native of British Gui. Appeal allowed. Tel: 0795 457 9992, or email
[email protected], Tucker, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Social Security: Admn 6 Apr 2001, A v Ministry of Defence; Re A (A Child): CA 7 May 2004, British Airways Plc v British Airline Pilots Association: QBD 23 Jul 2019, Wright v Troy Lucas (A Firm) and Another: QBD 15 Mar 2019, Hayes v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax Loan Interest Relief Disallowed): FTTTx 23 Jun 2020, Ashbolt and Another v Revenue and Customs and Another: Admn 18 Jun 2020, Indian Deluxe Ltd v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax/Corporation Tax : Other): FTTTx 5 Jun 2020, Productivity-Quality Systems Inc v Cybermetrics Corporation and Another: QBD 27 Sep 2019, Thitchener and Another v Vantage Capital Markets Llp: QBD 21 Jun 2019, McCarthy v Revenue and Customs (High Income Child Benefit Charge Penalty): FTTTx 8 Apr 2020, HU206722018 and HU196862018: AIT 17 Mar 2020, Parker v Chief Constable of the Hampshire Constabulary: CA 25 Jun 1999, Christofi v Barclays Bank Plc: CA 28 Jun 1999, Demite Limited v Protec Health Limited; Dayman and Gilbert: CA 24 Jun 1999, Demirkaya v Secretary of State for Home Department: CA 23 Jun 1999, Aravco Ltd and Others, Regina (on the application of) v Airport Co-Ordination Ltd: CA 23 Jun 1999, Manchester City Council v Ingram: CA 25 Jun 1999, London Underground Limited v Noel: CA 29 Jun 1999, Shanley v Mersey Docks and Harbour Company General Vargos Shipping Inc: CA 28 Jun 1999, Warsame and Warsame v London Borough of Hounslow: CA 25 Jun 1999, Millington v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and Regions v Shrewsbury and Atcham Borough Council: CA 25 Jun 1999, Chilton v Surrey County Council and Foakes (T/A R F Mechanical Services): CA 24 Jun 1999, Oliver v Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council: CA 23 Jun 1999, Regina v Her Majestys Coroner for Northumberland ex parte Jacobs: CA 22 Jun 1999, Sheriff v Klyne Tugs (Lowestoft) Ltd: CA 24 Jun 1999, Starke and another (Executors of Brown decd) v Inland Revenue Commissioners: CA 23 May 1995, South and District Finance Plc v Barnes Etc: CA 15 May 1995, Gan Insurance Company Limited and Another v Tai Ping Insurance Company Limited: CA 28 May 1999, Thorn EMI Plc v Customs and Excise Commissioners: CA 5 Jun 1995, London Borough of Bromley v Morritt: CA 21 Jun 1999, Kuwait Oil Tanker Company Sak; Sitka Shipping Incorporated v Al Bader;Qabazard; Stafford and H Clarkson and Company Limited; Mccoy; Kuwait Petroleum Corporation and Others: CA 28 May 1999, Worby, Worby and Worby v Rosser: CA 28 May 1999, Bajwa v British Airways plc; Whitehouse v Smith; Wilson v Mid Glamorgan Council and Sheppard: CA 28 May 1999. For such a verdict inexorably to follow, the unlawful act must be such as all sober and reasonable people would inevitably recognise must subject the other person to, at least, the risk of some harm resulting therefrom, albeit not serious harm.". The appellant, having consumed alcohol, learnt that the deceased had threatened his youngest son, and went to the deceaseds house armed with a sawn off-shotgun and cut-throat razor. was therefore inadmissible. Cheshire shot a man during the course of an argument. The decision is one for the jury to be The defendant had a brief relationship with a woman She ended the relationship and he could not accept her decision and embarked on a campaign of harassment against her over a period of 8 months. R v Matthews and Alleyne [2003] EWCA Crim 192 by Will Chen 2.I or your money back Check out our premium contract notes! not arise. After a short struggle with his girlfriend the defendant drove away and later gave himself up to the police. jury that before the appellant could use force in self-defence he was required to retreat. The court established the but for test of causation, according to which the defendant could not be convicted unless it could be shown that but for his actions the victim would not have died. However, in time NHS Trust v Bland (1993) 1 All E. 821, Mary and Jodie were conjoined twins joined at the pelvis. He appealed this conviction, arguing that an intent to cause grievous bodily harm was not sufficient to satisfy the mens rea of murder. She did not raise the defence of provocation but the judge directed the jury on provocation. Such an operation is, and is always likely to be, an exceptionally rare event, and because the medical literature shows that it is an operation to be avoided at all costs in the neonatal stage, there will be in practically every case the opportunity for the doctors to place the relevant facts before a court for approval (or otherwise) before the operation is attempted. In so doing he wrenched the gas pipes from the wall and gassed the next-door neighbour, whose life was endangered. It follows that that the jury must have used the defendants statements to the police against other defendants, despite the judges direction to the contrary. On the question as to which unlawful act the manslaughter conviction was founded, the House held in a case where there were several legitimate and valid alternative formulations, it was of little consequence how the act was identified. robbery after the jury accepted that they robbed the victim (as pre-planned) and threatened thereafter dies and the injuries inflicted while in utero either caused or made a substantial and the defendants were convicted of murder. to medical evidence, if the twins were left as they were, Mary would eventually be too much Facts. directing juries where the issue of self-defence is raised in any case (be it a homicide case or Facts R v CUNNINGHAM [1957] 2 QB 396 (CA) The decision in Smith (Morgan) allowing mental characteristics to be attributed to the reasonable man in assessing the standard of self-control expected of the defendant is no longer good law. to make it incumbent on the trial judge to give such a direction. On this basis, the conviction was quashed. by way of diminished responsibility. Both women got out, hailed a passing car and got into it. He called her a whore and told her to get out or he would kill her. The issue pertained as to whether it was necessary to establish that the defendant intended the infliction of grievous bodily harm in order to establish the crime of malicious infliction of grievous bodily harm under s 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. A person might also be guilty of an offence of recklessness by being objectively reckless, ie doing an act which creates an obvious risk of the relevant harm and at that time failing to give any thought to the possibility of there being any such risk. A train was stationary at a train station. The respondent stabbed his girlfriend in the stomach knowing at the time that she was pregnant. failing to give any thought to the possibility of there being any such risk. The conviction for murder was consequences of his act is sufficient to satisfy the mens rea of murder as intent. The lack of uniformity of the meaning of intention in the above cases was addressed in Nedrick[14]by Lord Lane CJ when he provided what is considered to be a model direction: Where the charge is murder and in the rare cases where the simple direction is not enough, the jury should be directed that they are not entitled to infer the necessary intention, unless they feel sure that death or serious bodily harm was a virtual certainty (barring some unforeseen intervention) as a result of the defendants actions and that the defendant appreciated that such was the case[15]. The House of Lords allowed Moloneys appeal. Facts D had been working for the owner of a hotel and, having a grievance against him, drunkenly set fire to the hotel. At her trial she raised the defence of diminished responsibility based on a personality disorder. She then tied the grandmother's mouth with a towel, closed the door of the house and went away. The trial judge directed the jury that if the defendant knew it was The appellant threw his 3 month old baby son on to a hard surface as a result as the baby The trial judges direction was a mis-direction. the operation was. The appeal was dismissed and the appellant's conviction for murder upheld. would be akin to withdrawal of support ie an omission rather than a positive act and also the The baby suffered a fractured skull and died. There was a material misdirection which expanded the mens rea of murder and therefore the murder conviction was unsafe. The stab wound made no direct contribution to her death, the cause of death being the premature birth and the complications associated with that. Did Hyam have the requisite intention to commit murder? It was held that the police officer was acting outside the scope of his powers as he had no power to arrest the woman in that situation and therefore, was acting outside of the scope of his duties as a police officer. The court held that there had been no intention to spread the infection, but by the complainants consenting to unprotected sexual intercourse, they are prepared, knowingly, to run the risk not the certainty of infection, as well as other inherent risks such as unintended pregnancy (paragraph 47). The issue was whether the negligence on the part of the doctors was capable of breaking the having a primitive brain and was completely dependent on Jodie for her survival. Therefore the consent of the parties to the blows which they mutually receive does not prevent those blows from being assaults.". They were convicted and the CA dismissed their appeal. The victim died of Appeal dismissed. actions must be proportional to the gravity of the threat. Thereupon he took off his belt and lashed her hard. Facts He tried to wake her for 30 mins to no avail. "1.2 Whether the fact that the death of the child is caused solely as a consequence of injury to the mother rather than as a consequence of direct injury to the foetus can negative any liability for murder or manslaughter in the circumstances set out in question 1.1. Recklessness for the purposes of the Criminal Damage Act 1971 is subjective; D must have foreseen the risk of the harm and gone on to take that risk. trial judge misled the jury into believing that if the appellant had acted wickedly, he had also The defendant's conviction was upheld. Key principle From 1981-2003, objective recklessness was applied to many offences, but the