R v Abraham
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE EDMUND DAVIES |
| Judgment Date | 08 June 1973 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1973] EWCA Crim J0608-4 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
| Docket Number | No. 6377/B/72 |
| Date | 08 June 1973 |
[1973] EWCA Crim J0608-4
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Lord Justice Edmund Davies
Mr. Justice Bean
and
Mr. Justice Croom Johnson
No. 6377/B/72
MR. C. BLOOM appeared on behalf of the Appellant.
MR. A. LEES appeared on behalf of the Crown.
This is the second of a series of three cases coming before this Court within a matter of three days where the same point is involved, a point which recurs with depressing frequency, despite the clarity of the warning in relation to it given by this Court in the judgment of Lord Justice Winn in Wheeler (1967) 52 Criminal Appeal Reports page 28.
The point may "be stated in this way: where a defendant charged with a criminal assault of one kind or another raises a plea of self-defence has the trial Judge in his direction to the Jury made it perfectly clear it is for the Crown to destroy that plea and not for the accused to establish it?
The present appeal comes before this Court by leave of the full Court. It is brought by Alan Abraham against his conviction at the Chester Crown Court last November of an offence of causing grievous bodily harm, contrary to Section 20 of the Offences against the Person Act of 1861. He was charged with contravening Section 18, which involved, of course, proof by the Crown that not only was grievous bodily harm inflicted but that it was caused with intent. By their verdict the Jury indicated they were not satisfied that the intent had been established but found that grievous bodily harm had been inflicted. The crux of this appeal is whether it can confidently be said that it was brought home to them that they could not convict of the lesser (but still grave) charge unless they were satisfied by the Crown that the action of the accused amounted to an unlawful act against the person whom he assaulted, and in the context of this case that the plea of self-defence lacked any substance.
The short facts are that on the 18th August of last year there was a building strike. The Appellant Abraham and a Mr. Armour were both officials in the Construction and Allied Trades Union, and the Appellant was, as we understand, also Chairman of its local 'Picketing Committee'.
In the course of their trade union activities those two men went to a building site at Little Sutton, which is near Ellesmere Port. The foreman in charge, a Mr. Wright, was 64 years of age and there was a joiner there, a Mr. Neill, and a labourer. Mr. Wright was not merely a supervisor, he was a working foreman. When the two trade union officials arrived on the scene, he was working with a shovel. The two officials told him who they were and they tried to persuade him to stop working on the site, but he was a man of spirit apparently for he did not take kindly to the suggestion. He was then informed by the officials that if he did not accede, pickets would be arriving that afternoon. Thereupon, according to the Crown's case, he raised the shovel which he was already holding and pushed it towards Abraham, saying something to the effect that he was not intimidated by any threats of pickets arriving. Abraham then said something to him like "Don't talk silly, an old man like you".
Then (this is the Crown's case) Abraham picked up a 4 foot spirit level and swung it at Mr. Wright, striking him a blow which caught him on the left side of his back and caused him to fall to his knees. When later examined it was found that he had no less than five broken ribs and in consequence a punctured lung. While he was still on his knees Mr. Neill, the joiner, saw that Abraham was in a position to strike again. He asked the trade union officials what on earth they thought they were doing, and Abraham replied "He asked for it". Then the officials got in the car and drove away.
The evidence for the Crown continued that when he was later questioned by the Police and was informed that Mr. Wright had sustained the fracture of five ribs the Appellant showed no concern. He asserted that he had only said a few words to Wright when Wright hit him with a shovel. The description he gave was that, "He swung the shovel at my head, I put my arm up to ward it off and he hit me here" indicating his left upper arm. The Police Officer had a look at his arm, but saw no bruise and no sign of injury. When he was charged under Section 18 he said "I struck back in self-defence, having received a blow from a shovel".
That was in essence the case which he advanced at the trial. He testified that he told Wright about the strike and asked whether Wright and the men working under him were prepared to join the strikers. He said that Wright then became very aggressive and, when the pickets were mentioned, said "If you don't get off or shut up you will get it", and swung a blow with the shovel. Abraham received the force of the blow with his arm and added "I would have been dead if he had hit me on the head". He then picked up the level and aimed what he himself described as "a very hard blow" at Wright's arm, but it did not land on the arm. Actually Wright was struck on his side, and he then aimed a blow at the other trade union official, Armour, who took the shovel off him. In essence those were the facts of the conflicting accounts advanced at the trial.
The grounds upon which the full Court on May 15th granted leave to appeal were two. They raised the following questions: first, whether there was any adequate direction to the Jury that it was for the Crown to negative self-defence; and secondly, as to the Section 20 charge upon which he was convicted, whether there was any accurate or sufficient direction to the Jury that, though the Section 20 charge was of less gravity than that laid under Section 18, nevertheless it was for the Crown to establish that the act of Abraham was unlawful, which in the context meant again that they were satisfied he was not acting in self-defence. It will thus be seen that although they are dressed up in different clothes, both points are in substance the same.
We take leave to say this: We regard it as a matter for the greatest...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ronald Webley Rohan Meikle v R
...of self-defence is raised on a proper evidential basis, unless the prosecution negatives that defence, the accused must be acquitted. See R v Abraham (1973) 57 Cr App R 799. The appellant squarely raised the issue of self-defence. He was entitled to have his account placed fairly before the......
-
Danny Benjamin Appellant v The Queen Respondent
... [2005] UKPC 2; Brown v R [2005] UKPC 18; Jagdeo Singh v The State [2005] UKPC 35. 13 [2011] 2 AC 79. 14 [2008] UKPC 36. 15 (1973) 57 Cr. App. R. 799. 16 (1984) 78 Cr. App. R. 17 BVIHCRAP2010/0006 ( delivered 27th August 2012, unreported). 18 (1971) 16 WIR 499. 19 SVGHCRAP19/2009 (deliv......
-
Ashley v Chief Constable of Sussex Police
... [2000] 1 WLR 1607, 1613 133 Barrett v Enfield London Borough Council [2001] 2 AC 550 134 W v Essex County Council [2000] 2 AC 592 135 R v Abraham [1973] 1 WLR 1270 136 Elliott v Chief Constable of Wiltshire (1966) The Times, 5 December 137 Bennett v Commissioner of Police for the Metropol......
- Williams (Hubert) v The State