Quarterly Summary
| DOI | 10.1177/002201836603000109 |
| Date | 01 January 1966 |
| Published date | 01 January 1966 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
Quarterly
Summary
(Extended reports
of
some
of
the
cases
here summarised will be
given in our next issue.-Editor)
AFFRAYS
NOT
IN
PUBLIC PLACES
Button v. Director
of
Public Prosecutions
In
affirming the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal
(1965, 2 W.L.R. 992) the House of Lords stated that the
essence of
the
offence of affray was that two or more fight
together to the terror of the Queen's subjects, and that
the
place where the fight occurred need not be a public place.
Nowhere in
the
earlier writings was it suggested that the place
where the fight occurred was a decisive matter.
The
House
thought that an error crept into the law from about 1820
onwards
but
it was not considered to be too late to correct
the
error now.
The
offence was a useful one as there were situations
in which it would be possible to convict of affray on evidence
on which it would not be possible to convict of assault.
In
the
kindred offences of riot and assault there was no requirement
that
they should be committed in a public place. (1965, 3
W.L.R.1131.)
PROVOCATION AS EXTENUATION
Rolle v. The Queen
During aquarrel in
the
street
the
deceased picked up a
piece of wood and with it struck
the
first blow against
the
appellant, hitting him on the cheek.
The
appellant took
out
an
ice-pick from his belt or pocket and stabbed
the
deceased
piercing his heart. At
the
trial the defence relied on self-
defence
but
the
jury
convicted him of murder, not
manslaughter,
the
possible issue of provocation not having
been left to
the
jury
by the judge. On appeal from the Supreme
Court of the Bahama Islands it was held that on the evidence
there was a possible inference from the facts of the case,
including the gravity of the provocation and
the
threat of
further attack and the appellant's quick and excessive
69
To continue reading
Request your trial