R v Hopper
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Date | 1915 |
| Year | 1915 |
| Court | Court of Criminal Appeal |
Criminal Law - Murder - Manslaughter - Question of Provocation not left to Jury - Duty of Judge to direct Jury on Question arising out of Evidence, although not relied upon by Counsel.
Whatever may be the line of defence adopted by counsel for a prisoner at the trial, the judge is bound to put to the jury such questions as appear to him properly to arise upon the evidence even although counsel may not himself have raised some point.
At the trial of the appellant for murder his counsel relied substantially on the defence that the killing was accidental, but he indicated that in the event of the jury not accepting that view he would ask them to find that the crime was manslaughter and not murder. The judge, taking the view that there was no evidence of such provocation as would reduce the crime to manslaughter, directed the jury that it was impossible for them to find a verdict of manslaughter, and that if they did not come to the conclusion that the killing was accidental they must find a verdict of murder. The jury returned a verdict of murder.
On appeal:—
Held, that there was evidence of such provocation as would, if the jury accepted it, justify them in finding a verdict of manslaughter, that the judge ought to have left to the jury the question whether the crime was manslaughter only, and that as he had omitted to do so, the Court, acting under s. 5, sub-s. 2, of the
APPEAL from a conviction at Cardiff Assizes for murder.
On December 25, 1914, the appellant, a sergeant in the 6th Welsh (Territorial) Regiment, was in charge of twelve men who were on guard as Swansea Docks. There had been during the day much drinking among them, and at 8 P.M. the appellant was very drunk. Later the same evening the appellant missed a bottle of whisky, and he accused Private Dudley of the same regiment of having stolen it. Dudley called him a liar, and a fight ensued, and Private Gates came to the assistance of Dudley, who threatened to use his bayonet. The two men, Dudley and Gates, then got the appellant down on the ground and “hammered” him very considerably. An officer then arrived and ordered the arrest and disarming of the two privates, and the appellant, as a non-commissioned officer, had to take them in charge with an escort. On the way to the guard-room Dudley was ordered to, but refused to, give up his bayonet, and he put his hand on the hilt of it, as one of the escort said, in order to prevent it being taken away. The appellant again ordered Dudley to disarm, and again Dudley put his hand on the bayonet, and said something — according to one witness, “What if I refuse?” — according to the appellant, “I will stick it into you.” The appellant ordered the escort to disarm Dudley, and during a struggle in the attempt to take away Dudley's bayonet the appellant levelled his rifle and fired and Dudley fell...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Ong Choon; R
- Chen Fan Chiang v PP
- Othman bin Ahmad v PP
- Chee Kim Seng and Another v PP
-
The plea of accident in the criminal law
...plea, however slender and no matter whether D relies on it to support his version, the trial judge must leave it to the jury: Hopper [1915] 2 K.B. 431; Porritt [1961] 3 All E.R. 643; Kwaku Mensah [1946] A.C. 83 (P.C.); Bullard [1957] A.C. 635 (P.C.); Rolle [1965] 1 W.L.R. 1341 (P.C.). 41 Ma......