Offences against the Person in UK Law

Where the offence or offences are in themselves grave enough to require a very long sentence. Where it appears from the nature of the offences or from the Defendant's history that he is a person of unstable character likely to commit such offences in the future, and 3. Where if the offences are committed the consequences to others may be specially injurious, as in the case of sexual offences or crimes of violence.

Throughout the web of the English Criminal Law one golden thread is always to be seen that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the prisoner's guilt subject to what I have already said as to the defence of insanity and subject also to any statutory exception.

In some instances the imposition of liability may lead to the exercise of a function being carried on in a detrimentally defensive frame of mind. A great deal of police time, trouble and expense might be expected to have to be put into the preparation of the defence to the action and the attendance of witnesses at the trial. The result would be a significant diversion of police manpower and attention from their most important function, that of the suppression of crime.

That means that in cases of this kind the Court must in the end ask itself a subjective question, whether we are content to let the matter stand as it is, or whether there is not some lurking doubt in our minds which makes us wonder whether an injustice has been done. This is a reaction which may not be based strictly on the evidence as such; it is a reaction which can be produced by the general feel of the case as the Court experiences it.

But in answering the question it is important to consider what is meant by a “joint charge”. In my view, it only means that more than one person is being charged and that within certain rules of practice or convenience it is permissible for the two persons to be named in one count. The offences charged in the present case were individual charges against each of the brothers.

4. The requirement that he should be so informed does not mean that technical or precise language need be used. The matter is a matter of substance, and turns on the elementary proposition that in this country a person is, prima facie, entitled to his freedom and is only required to submit to restraints on his freedom if he knows in substance the reason why it is claimed that this restraint should be imposed.