R v Bonnick
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE STEPHENSON |
| Judgment Date | 21 October 1977 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1977] EWCA Crim J1021-6 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
| Docket Number | No. 3471/C/77 |
| Date | 21 October 1977 |
[1977] EWCA Crim J1021-6
Lord Justice Stephenson
Mr. Justice Milmo
and
Mr. Justice Peter Pain
No. 3471/C/77
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
(CRIMINAL DIVISION)
Royal Courts of Justice
MR. J. BLAIR-GOULD appeared on behalf of the Appellant.
MR. P. COOPER appeared on behalf of the Crown.
On the 30th June, 1977 the Appellant, charged with two offences of wounding with intent, was convicted at the Central Criminal Court of unlawfully wounding two young men named Sales and Sage, and was given by Judge Abdela concurrent sentences of nine months' imprisonment. He appeals against both convictions by leave of the single Judge.
The case for the prosecution was that the Appellant stabbed each of the two young men with a penknife, one in the leg and the other in the chest, at London Bridge Station about midnight on the 3rd/4th April, 1976. Sales and Sage were on a platform with Miss Jordan, now the wife of Sales, and another young man named Vowles, when the Appellant came staggering on to the platform in a drunken and belligerent manner. He approached Miss Jordan with "Hello Darling", was told to clear off, offered to fight and then walked away. Sales went in the same direction–he said to see if their train was coming; the Appellant was ahead of him, turned round and came up to him. Sales told him to go away and "put his hand to him". Sage, who had joined them, pulled Sales off the Appellant and then Sales was stabbed in the leg and Sage in the chest.
The case for the defence was one of mistaken identity. The Appellant gave evidence that he was not there at midnight and had never seen the young men or the young woman until after he was arrested, in the police office at London Bridge Station. He had been at London Bridge Station at about 11 p.m. and he had come back there at about 2 a.m., but at midnight he was going down the railway line from the station to join a team working on the line or retracing his steps after finding that it was not his team and he could not join it. This evidence was inconsistent with his Solicitors' notice of alibi, which stated that "Our client will say that he was at London Bridge station on the evening of the 3rd/4th April, 1976, at about midnight. He says that he may well have been on platforms 1 and 2 but was not the man responsible for the assaults on Kenneth Sales and Michael Sage". But his defence always was that he was not the man who stabbed Sales and Sage.
The only issue for the jury would, therefore, appear to have been identification, and there was overwhelming evidence identifying the Appellant as the man who stabbed Sales and Sage. He was identified by the two victims, by Mrs. Sales, and, though Vowles could not be certain, by a Miss Flemming, an independent eye-witness who was on the platform with two other young women. The identification was supported by forensic evidence of fibres like those on the Appellant's jacket which were found on Sales' jacket. But when at the end of Sage's evidence-in-chief the Judge suggested that identification was the only issue, Mr. Blair-Gould for the defence submitted that self-defence was also an issue. The Judge ruled in the presence of the jury that it was not, and when he came to sum up directed the jury to exclude it. He said: "…you will remember also, during the course of the case as it was set out to you and during the course of discussions a reference was made to the question of self-defence and I indicated to Mr. Blair-Gould that the question of self-defence or the issue of self-defence was not a matter which would be considered in this case. As I say, in deference to him, the reason why I gave that indication was that it became apparent that this defendant was saying in terms: 'I was not there. It had nothing at all to do with me'." He then gave them a correct, but (if his ruling was right) unnecessary, explanation of the law on self-defence and proceeded: "The prosecution have to prove, therefore, that the issue is one which was not justifiable in that particular instance, that is if the defendant raises it. The issue is not raised just because a suggestion is made by learned counsel, with all respect to learned counsel.
"What have you heard from this defendant here? Has he raised any issue of that sort? On the contrary. He has kept as far away from it as anyone could. This is not, therefore, a consideration for you, ladies and gentlemen, in this particular case. He is saying: 'Well, there may be an issue between somebody else but so far as I, Derek Bonnick, am concerned I am not raising any issue that I was justified in stabbing Sage or Sales because I didn't do it. I was not even there. I never even saw them'. So would you please exclude that particular consideration from your minds in relation to the evidence that you have heard because this defendant has not raised that issue." The sole ground of appeal is that direction: "The Judge wrongly refused to allow the defence to raise the question of self-defence, on the ground that the appellant's case was that he was not the man involved, although cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses showed that self-defence was an issued raised by their own evidence."
It...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R v Tim Radford
...Council, however, held that the issue of self-defence should also have been left to the jury. It cited from the decision of this court in R v Bonnick (1978) 66 Cr App R 266 at 269 from a passage which began as follows: "When is evidence sufficient to raise an issue, for example self-defence......
-
Minors v R
... ... Mr. Kawaley for the Appellant ... Mr. Calhoun for the Respondent ... R v VennaWLR [1975] 3 WLR 737 R v LawrenceUNK [1981] 1 All ER 982 R v Bonnick (1978) Cr App R 266 Criminal Code s. 306 Wounding — Fight at cricket match — Bystander wounded — whether specific intent — Recklessness — Appeal against conviction JUDGMENT Collett, J. The Appellant Andre ... ...
-
Delano Smith Appellant v R Respondent [ECSC]
... ... In R v Bonnick (1978) 66 Cr App Rep 266 , the court observed that the question of whether there was sufficient evidence to raise an issue fit to be left to the jury was one for the trial judge to answer, applying commonsense to the evidence." ... 29 The foundation of the Crown's ... ...
-
Garnett Edwards v R
...Counsel relied on the following cases for these statements of the law: ( R v Muir (1995) 48 WIR 262, R v Porrit [1961] 3 All ER 463, R v Bonnick (1977) 66 Cr App R 266, Hyman v DPP [1974] 2 All ER 41 ). 49 Counsel submitted that in the instant case the prosecution put forward a case of murd......