For Want of a Shoe Her Freedom was Lost: Judicial Law Reform and Dashed Hopes in R v Mitchell: R v Mitchell (Laura) [2018] EWCA Crim 2687
| DOI | 10.1177/0022018319831847 |
| Date | 01 February 2019 |
| Published date | 01 February 2019 |
| Subject Matter | Case Notes |
Case Note
For Want of a Shoe
Her Freedom was Lost:
Judicial Law Reform
and Dashed Hopes
in R v Mitchell
R v Mitchell (Laura) [2018] EWCA Crim 2687
The appellant Laura Mitchell, her partner Michael Hall, Carl Wood and Carl Holmes were involved in a
violent disputein the car park of a public house.The conflict started whenthe appellant’s group took a taxi
that had been booked by another group, including Craig Powell, his brother Dean Powell and their friend
Andrew Ayres. The appellant ‘was in the thick’ (at [4]) of the resulting violence. She was seen shouting,
swearing, punching members of the other group andhitting them with her handbag. At some stage during
the commotion, she lost her shoes. There was a lull in the violence during which Ms Mitchell and her
partner remained in the car park, looking for her shoes. Meanwhile, their friends went to a nearby house
where they obtained ‘weapons and reinforcements’ (at [5]). They returned with a mace, a knuckle-duster
and a CS gas spray. The attack resumed. Mr Ayres was caught and brought to the ground. He was kicked
and stamped upon by Mr Holmes who later pleaded guilty to his murder. Others, including the appellant,
may have been inv olved in the fatal a ttack; however, th e evidence was n ot clear.
It was the prosecutioncase that the appellant andher friends were all party to a joint enterprise,in which
they each foresaw the possibility that one of their group would cause the death of one of those being
attacked with the intention to kill or cause really serious bodily harm. It was the appellant’s case that she
had got into the taxi and then been ordered out. Her partner was attacked and she had intervened in an
attempt to stop the fighting. She accepted that she was involved at the start of the violence and primarily
responsible for it. However, she maintained that she was not involved in, and had not encouraged, the
subsequent attack on Mr Ayres. She was in the vicinity solely because she was searching for her shoes.
The jury were directed that they could convict the appellant either on the basis that she had played
some part in the fatal attack on Mr Ayres, intending him really serious bodily harm, or that she was
involved in a joint enterprise to attack him and his friends, realising that one or more of the attackers
might cause really serious harm with intent to do so, and that the principal’s actions were not funda-
mentally different from the acts she realised might occur.
Ms Mitchell was convicted of murder and violent disorder. She immediately, but unsuccessfully,
appealed her conviction. Her current appeal was based on a reference by the Criminal Cases Review
Commission (CCRC) pursuant to s. 9 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995. Notwithstanding the CCRC
referral, because this appeal was brought out of time and based on the change of law in Jogee [2016]
UKSC 8, the appellant needed to demonstrate ‘substantial injustice’, that is, that there was a sufficiently
strong case that she would not have been convicted had the law as identified in Jogee been applied to her
case (R v Johnson and Others [2017] 1 Cr App R 12; [2016] EWCA Crim 1613).
Held, dismissing the appeal, that while the judge’s directions ‘were undoubtedly flawed’ and ‘the
approach of the court on the last occasion similarly flawed’, Jogee-compliant directions would not have
made a difference to the appellant’s conviction. The appellant had the necessary conditional intent.
The Journal of Criminal Law
2019, Vol. 83(1) 20–23
ªThe Author(s) 2019
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0022018319831847
journals.sagepub.com/home/clj
To continue reading
Request your trial