R v Beswick
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 14 August 1995 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1995] EWCA Crim J0814-1 |
| Date | 14 August 1995 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
| Docket Number | No: 95/3778/X2 |
[1995] EWCA Crim J0814-1
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL CRIMINAL DIVISION
Before: Lord Justice Stuart Smith Mr Justice Jowitt and Mrs Justice Steel
No: 95/3778/X2
MISS T GRACE appeared on behalf of the Appellant
MR FIREMAN appeared on behalf of the Crown
Monday 14th August 1995
MR JUSTIC JOWITT: On 27th March 1995 this appellant appeared at Manchester Crown Court before Her Honour Judge Ruaux to face an indictment charging him with causing grievous bodily harm with intent contrary to section 18 of the Offences Against the Persons Act 1861. The case made against him on the committal papers was that he had become involved in an argument with a young woman, Nicola Brady, at a fish and chip shop in which, on his own admission, he had pushed her. This was part of a wider incident in which others were involved, including a Miss Tammy Beard, who was struck. Miss Brady ran home to where her brother was, David Brady, the victim in this case. She told him what had happened and he returned with her to the fish and chip shop to discover, according to him, who the culprits were.
He said in his witness statement that he was set upon by several youths. He was punched and knocked to the ground, whereafter he was kicked about his face and body. Among his attackers was the appellant. As Brady was trying to get up from the ground the appellant kneed him in the nose and then grabbed his head and bit the top of his ear while others continued to kick and punch him. The appellant bit into his ear until he had completely bitten off the top of it. It is hardly surprisingly in the light of this evidence that the appellant was indicted with a section 18 offence. However, an agreement was reached between his counsel and counsel then appearing to prosecute that a plea of guilty to unlawfully causing grievous bodily harm contrary to section 20 would be acceptable to the prosecution, and the prosecution further agreed to accept this plea on a basis which was reduced into writing. The document reads as follows:
"Mr. Beswick was not involved in any fighting outside the chip shop or as an aggressor in any incident which resulted in Tammy Beard being slapped or assaulted. He was in the chip shop queue when David Brady came in and confronted Jason Hoole, who was another defendant with regard to the fight that had taken place earlier involving Tammy Beard. A fight then broke out between Hoole and Brady in which Beswick became embroiled. During the struggle between Beswick and Brady, Beswick without actual thought of the consequences, bit at Brady's ear, causing the injury in an attempt to get himself free, which he accepts was excessive in the circumstances."
In pursuance of this agreement the appellant pleaded not guilty to the section 18 offence but guilty to an offence against section 20 and his plea was accepted. The case was adjourned for the preparation of a pre-sentence report. It does not appear that Judge Ruaux was asked to approve the basis on which the plea had been accepted.
The case came before the court again on 22nd May but before a different judge, His Honour Judge Morris, and the prosecution was represented by different counsel, this time Mr. Fireman. The judge was told of the agreement between the prosecution and the defence as to the basis of the plea but he declined to give effect to this agreement and he ordered that there should be a Newton trial of three issues: first, whether there had been a concerted attack on Brady; second, whether the appellant was the ringleader in that attack and third, whether he bit Brady's ear deliberately.
Counsel were apparently unsure about the issues which were to be tried and so saw the judge in his room. We observe there that there seems to us to have been no reason at all for such a discussion to take place other than in open court and in the presence of the appellant, when there would have been a shorthand note of what was said. It seems that in the course of the meeting in the judge's room, the question of a witness, Oliver,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Public Prosecutor v Chan Yoke Ling Catherine
...take place: Smith (1986) 8 Cr App R (S) 169; William v Another (1983) 5 Cr App R (S) 134; Myers [1996] 1 Cr App R (S) 187; Beswick [1996] 1 Cr App R (S) 343; unless a. The difference in the two versions of the facts is immaterial to sentencing, and the same sentence would be passed however ......
-
Michael William Oakley
...found, upon a Newton enquiry, to have been true or possibly true, then it would have led to a substantially lesser sentence." 13 Finally, in Beswick (1996) 1 Cr App R (S) 343, this Court reviewed the situation and Jowitt J, giving the decision of the Court, outlined in some detail the basis......
-
Harewood v The Queen
...manslaughter on a charge of murder should be set out in writing and agreed to by both counsel on facts which are true rather than unreal: R. v. Beswick (1996) 1 Cr. App. R. (S.) 343. If that (or some other appropriate) procedure is followed, it is possible that the need for Newton hearings ......
-
Clarke v The Queen
...lend itself to any agreement whereby a case is presented to a sentencing judge to be dealt with….on an unreal and untrue set of facts” — R. v. Beswick [1996] 1 Cr.App.R. (S) 343 at 346. If the defendant has a version of the facts different from those outlined by the prosecution, he will, of......