Judicial Review and the Criminal Cases Review Commission
| Published date | 01 December 2003 |
| DOI | 10.1350/jcla.67.6.446.19434 |
| Date | 01 December 2003 |
| Subject Matter | High Court |
Judicial Review and the Criminal Cases Review
Commission
R (on the application of Farnell) v Criminal Cases Review Commission
[2003] EWHC Admin 835
The applicant was convicted of murder in March 1996. The deceased
and his wife had had a young puppy whose constant barking irritated
the applicant. Following a row in which many insults were exchanged,
the applicant had killed the deceased with a crowbar. His defence at trial
was one of diminished responsibility under s. 2 of the Homicide Act
1957, and medical evidence in this regard was presented to the court. In
the absence of any submissions by the defence, the judge decided that
there was evidence of provocation and left this issue for the jury to
determine, directing the jury that they should consider, inter alia,
whether a reasonable man of the same age and sex of the applicant
would have reacted in the same way that he did. Leave to appeal against
conviction on unrelated grounds was refused by a single judge in June
1996.
In June 1998, the applicant applied to the Criminal Cases Review
Commission (CCRC) to have his case reviewed. The CCRC reached a
preliminary decision not to refer the case and then made the final
decision not to refer in April 2001. In July 2001, a letter was sent to the
applicant from the CCRC saying that the case would be ‘considered
afresh’ following the House of Lords ruling in R v Smith (Morgan James)
[2001] 1 AC 146 in June 2001. However, in July 2002, the CCRC then
confirmed to the applicant that the case would not be referred back to
the Court of Appeal. Having had leave to apply for judicial review of this
decision refused by a single judge, a full court granted leave in December
2002.
The CCRC’s decision was based on the finding that the issue of
provocation had been properly left to the jury and that the restatement
in Smith (Morgan James) did not lead to such different terms of jury
direction as to give rise to issues of lack of safety. It did not consider that,
were the defence to argue provocation on appeal, there would be a real
possibility of success.
The review rested on the contention that the CCRC’s decision that
there was no real...
To continue reading
Request your trial