R v Duffy
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | MR. JUSTICE EDMUND DAVIES |
| Judgment Date | 29 November 1965 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1965] EWCA Crim J1129-6 |
| Court | Court of Criminal Appeal |
| Docket Number | No. 1616/65 |
| Date | 29 November 1965 |
[1965] EWCA Crim J1129-6
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
Royal Courts of Justice
Mr. Justice Edmund Davies
Mr. Justice Fenton Atkinson
and
Mr. Justice Lyell
No. 1616/65
MR. J.A. COTTON appeared on behalf of the Appellant.
MR. S. GILL appeared on behalf of the Crown.
On the 30th June of this year at Leeds Assizes, this Appellant was found not guilty of wounding with intent but guilty of unlawful wounding. She received a sentence of two years' imprisonment. She had been indicted jointly with her twin sister, Kathleen Mary Duffy, who was similarly convicted, but sentenced to three years' imprison-ment. Elizabeth Lilian Duffy was granted leave to appeal against conviction by the single Judge.
The facts were these, that the victim of the affair was a Pakistani named Mohammed Akbar who said that on the night of 1st May he visited the Barracks Tavern in Bradford, where the two accused women were. Kathleen Duffy abused him and then hit him in the face with a glass. He said he did not see the Appellant do anything and did not know whether she hit him or not. The licensee said that he saw Kathleen Duffy break a glass, and when he next looked he saw Akbar bleeding profusely, and he sent for the police. He testified that he had not seen this Appellant at the start of the trouble, but she appeared from the toilet at a time when her sister was fighting with Akbar on the floor, and it is not unimportant to note that at that time there was blood on both Akbar and on her sister, and the Appellant went up to help her sister.
A witness named Hant said he heard a commotion and he saw a Pakistani holding on to Kathleen Duffy and the Appellant hitting him with a glass until it broke.
A police officer who was called to the scene said he saw Kathleen on the floor fighting with Akbar. The Appellant was in the midst of the battle with a bottle in her hand, and as he and another constable approached, he saw the Appellant fight her way towards the Pakistani, raise her right arm and strike him a severe blow on the back of the head with a bottle which smashed and blood gushed from the back of his head. Both women pummelled him with their fists.
Later that day, the accused women made statements. Kathleen Duffy admitted hitting Akbar because of a grudge she bore him, and she said he hit her back with a glass which cut her fingers. She said she was drunk and did not mean to hit him so badly. This Appellant in the course of her statement said that as she came out of the toilet, after hearing shouting, she saw Akbar holding her sister by the hair and she was on her knees on the floor. This Appellant said she pulled Akbar's hair to pull him off her sister, hut could not get him off, and when he kicked her on the leg, she hit him on the head with a "bottle.
There was medical evidence that Akbar received severe lacerations caused by broken glass on his face and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- The State v Singh (Clement)
-
R. v. Carriere (D.M.), (2013) 573 A.R. 250 (QB)
...(Attorney General) et al., [1993] 3 S.C.R. 519; 158 N.R. 1; 34 B.C.A.C. 1; 56 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 105, footnote 39]. R. v. Duffy, [1967] 1 Q.B. 63 (C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 114, footnote State v. King (2013), 304 P. 3d 1 (S.C. MT), refd to. [para. 116]. Connecticut National Bank v. Ge......
-
Austin v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis
...because at common law a person was entitled to use such force as was reasonably necessary to protect himself or another or property (see R. v. Duffy [1967] 1 Q.B. 63, 50 Cr.App.R. 68, CCA), and, despite the enactment of the 1967 Act, the courts have continued ever since to talk in terms of ......
-
R v Venna
...cited such as Osmer 5 East 304, Kenlin and another v. Gardiner and another (1967) 2 Queen's Bench 510, and Regina v. Duffy (1967) 1 Queen's Bench 63 have however no relevance to a situation in which the arrest is a lawful arrest. 17 Mr. Barnes for the Crown argued that in any event the dire......
-
Defenceless Castles
...scope of this particular discussion. 4. Its relevance can, of course, be questioned in practice as a result of the decision in R v Duffy [1967] 1 QB 63 (CCA), in which, despite the enactment of the 1967 Act, the courts continued to talk in terms of the common law rules. 5. Criminal Justice ......
-
Excessive self-defence and criminal liability
...treated as a justification, covering not only defence of oneself but also defence of others. See, eg, Rose (1884) 15 Cox CC 540; Duffy [1967] 1 QB 63. 4 See Cousins [1982] QB 526, [1982] 2 All ER 115; Devlin v Armstrong [1971] NI 13. However, it has been argued that, in cases involving puta......
-
Proposals for Reforming the Law of Self-Defence
...at 6–7.6Palmer v R[1971] AC 814. The case was approved and followed by the Court ofAppeal in Rv McInnes [1971] 1 WLR 1600. 7 In R v Duffy [1967] 1 QB 63 at 64, the court went even further by holding that‘apart from any special relations between the person attacked and the rescuer,there was ......
-
Trespass to a burglar's person: tort defences
...i.e. greater than requisite for the purpose of deterring the plaintiff, and also disproportionate to the evil to 3 R. v. Duffy [1967] 1 Q.B. 63. See also Criminal Law Act 1967, s..3 (U.K.); Criminal Law Act, Ch. 10:04, s.4 (Trinidad and Tobago); Criminal Code, Cap. 124, s. 18 (St. Vincent a......