R v Hazeltine
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE SALMON |
| Judgment Date | 21 April 1967 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1967] EWCA Crim J0421-3 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
| Docket Number | No. 1026/67 |
| Date | 21 April 1967 |
[1967] EWCA Crim J0421-3
Lord Justice Salmon
Mr. Justice Fenton Atkinson
and
Mr. Justice Brabin
No. 1026/67
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
MR. D.M. CHEATLE appeared as Counsel for the Appellant.
MR. P. GRIFFITHS appeared as Counsel for the Crown.
This appeal raises a novel point of law. On the 14th February of this year at the Surrey Assizes this appellant was sentenced to nine months imprisonment for unlawful wounding. He now appeals against that conviction by leave of the single Judge.
The point arises in this way. The Appellant was arraigned on an indictment containing a number of counts, the only material one being count 4 under which he was charged with wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm contrary to Section 18 of The Offences against the Person Act, 1861. When he was called upon to plead to that count he said Not guilty but guilty to unlawful wounding'. The Crown, however, refused to accept that plea and he was put in charge of the jury on count 4, the jury being told that he had pleaded not guilty to that count. At the end of the case, the jury retired and they returned a simple verdict of not guilty to that count. He was then sentenced by the learned Judge to nine months imprisonment for unlawful wounding. It was argued on behalf of the Appellant that in these circumstances the Judge had no power to sentence him and he should have ordered him to be discharged.
I will now state the material facts. It appeal's that on Friday, 23rd December of last year at about 8.30 in the evening, a young man called Frank Bullen and a young woman were together in Bridge Street, Leatherhead, The appellant walked towards them with another man who was tried with him. This other man, according to the evidence of Frank Bullen which was corroborated by the young woman, grabbed Bullen by the lapels of his coat and said "Give me some money. I want another point". Bullen said he had not got any money whereupon the other man punched him on the nose and then rained blows upon him drawing blood. According to Bullen he was attacked at the same time from behind and the blows that were struck to the back of his head also broke the skin and drew blood. The evidence of Bullen was corroborated, as I have said, by his companion and also to a very large extent by a passer-by. When the appellant went into the witness box he told a story which was wholly inconsistent with the admission inherent in his plea of guilty to unlawful wounding. He said in effect that his companion and Bullen were fighting, he stepped in to separate the two of them and Bullen kicked him in the groin and he struck out at Bullen; what he did was done either in self defense or else by accident. If that story were true or if it might have been accepted as being possibly true, then clearly he was not guilty of wounding with intent, nor guilty of unlawful wounding.
The evidence against the appellant was quite overwhelming. Nevertheless the point of law remains to be decided. It is clear that there can be only one plea to anyone count in respect of which a man is put in charge of the jury. If an accused man says that he admits certain ingredients of the offence charged in the count but not others, that is a plea of not guilty. It is possible, however, when a man is tried for wounding with intent, for the jury to find him not guilty of wounding with intent but guilty of unlawful wounding, and it is also possible, having regard to Section 39 (1) of the Criminal Justices Administration Act of 1914 for a man accused of wounding with intent, to plead not guilty to that offence but guilty of unlawful wounding. The section reads as follows: "Where a prisoner is arraigned on an indictment for any offence, and can lawfully be convicted on such indictment of some other offence not charged in such indictment, he may plead not guilty of the offence charged in the indictment, but guilty of such other offence". Prior to that statutory provision, it was not possible for an accused to plead guilty to unlawful wounding when charged with wounding with intent but it was and always has been possible for a jury, when a man is charged with wounding with intent, to return a verdict of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R v Yeardley
...of leave, the registrar raised the question whether the sentences were lawful at all in the light of the decision of this court in R v Hazeltine [1967] 2 QB 857 and (1967) 51 Cr App R 351. 9 It is necessary to give only a very brief account of the facts in the present case. 10 At about 10.3......
- R v Thompson (Calvin)
-
The Queen v Junior Bayode
...plea of guilty to the lesser included alternative must be treated as withdrawn because otherwise there could be no trial or verdict: R v Hazeltine [1967 ] 2 QB 857. If, however, there are two counts, it is not necessary to vacate the plea to the lesser count (although this may well be permi......
- Griffiths v R