R v Caley-Knowles (Edward); R v Jones (Iorwerth)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 20 June 2006 |
| Neutral Citation | [2006] EWCA Crim 1611 |
| Date | 20 June 2006 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
COURT OF APPEAL Criminal Division
Before Lord Justice Tuckey, Mr Justice Leveson and Mr Justice Irwin
NOT every case where the judge had directed the jury to convict should be considered unsafe.
The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, so held when allowing appeals by:
(i) Edward Caley-Knowles against his conviction in October 1972 at Kendal Crown Court (Judge Edmondson and a jury) of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, contrary to section 47 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861, and (ii) Iorweth Jones against his conviction at Carmarthen Crown Court (Judge Lewis Bowen and a jury) of damaging property, contrary to section 1(1) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971.
Both cases were referred to the Court of Appeal by the Criminal Cases Review Commission to consider whether it was ever open to the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, to conclude, following the decision of the House of Lords in R v WangTLRWLR (The Times February 11, 2005; (2005) 1 WLR 661) that a conviction was safe in a case where the judge had directed a jury to convict.
Mr John Dugan, solicitor, for Caley-Knowles; Miss Alison Whalley for the Crown.
Mr James Tucker for Jones; Mr Huw Rees for the Crown.
LORD JUSTICE TUCKEY said that in each case the appellant had not raised any defence in law to the indictment he faced and the judge had directed the jury to convict which they did without retiring.
In Wang Lord Bingham of Cornhill said (at paragraph 17): there were "no circumstances in which a judge is entitled to direct a jury to return a verdict of guilty".
Their Lordships did not think the passage in paragraph 17 supported the proposition that in every case where a direction to convict was given the conviction should be considered unsafe.
In R v KelleherUNK (unreported (2003) EWCA Crim 3525) the judge had directed the jury that "there can only be one verdict in this case and that is one of guilty". But he subsequently asked the jury to retire, which they did, and in due course they returned with a guilty verdict. The defendant's appeal against conviction was dismissed.
In their...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R v Steven Cottrell ; R v Joseph Fletcher
...decision to refer. That does not constitute approval. Thus, for example, we pause to consider the decisions in R v Cayley-Knowles and R v Iorwerth Jones [2006] EWCA Crim 1611, which were referred to the court following a decision in the House of Lords in R v Wang [2005] UKHL 9 which held th......
-
R (Director of HM Revenue and Customs Prosecutions) v Criminal Cases Review Commission
...EWCA Crim 3134; Mair [2002] EWCA Crim 2858; Hayes [2002] EWCA Crim 1945; Kennedy [2005] EWCA Crim 685; and Caley-Knowles and Jones [2006] EWCA Crim 1611. We limit ourselves to comment on the last two cases. In Kennedy, although the appeal was dismissed, Lord Woolf CJ not only refrained from......
-
The Need to Kill Off Zombie Law
...as all conduct to which the case applied was in the past.112. As in the case of Caley-Knowles [2006] EWCA Crim Div 1611; [2007] 1 Cr App R 13. The appellate courts are, however,keen to prevent such cases coming before them, as most recently expressed by the Supreme Court in Jogee.113. A poi......