Court of Criminal Appeal
| Date | 01 July 1957 |
| DOI | 10.1177/002201835702100306 |
| Published date | 01 July 1957 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
Court of
Criminal
Appeal
ONUS OF ESTABLISHING
THE
PLEA OF SELF-DEFENCE
R. v. Lobell
WHEN
the
accused sets up
the
plea of self-defence
the
judge should not direct
the
jury
that
it is for
the
accused
to establish
that
plea to their satisfaction.
The
appeal against
aconviction of wounding with intent to do grievous bodily
harm succeeded in
R.
v. Lobell(1957, 2W.L.R.) because such
adirection had been given to the
jury
and this was held by
the
Court
(Lord
Goddard, C.J., Cassels and Gorman,
11.)
to be
awrong form of direction.
The
appellant was charged at
the
Manchester Crown
Court with wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm.
There
had been bad blood and enmity between
the
appellant,
who was a wholesale butcher and had a stall in a meat market,
and
the
complainant, one Evans.
There
was evidence of
threats which had been uttered by Evans against
the
appellant;
the
appellant
had
on a previous occasion, with a knife in his
hand, said
that
he would kill Evans, who had retorted
that
if
the
appellant moved his arm he would break it. On the day
of
the
wounding alleged in
the
indictment it was said
that
Evans approached
the
appellant uttering threats,
that
the
latter
then
threw abrick at Evans who however continued to
advance towards him in a threatening manner, whereupon
the
appellant picked up a knife, which he said he had brought
for his protection, and stabbed him.
He
then
drove off to
the
police station and said
that
he had stabbed a man in self-
defence. At
the
trial the sole defence set up by
the
appellant
was
that
in inflicting
the
wound he was acting in self-defence.
Jones, J., summing up, directed
the
jury, and several times
stressed,
that
it was for
the
defence to establish
that
plea to their
satisfaction.
235
To continue reading
Request your trial