R v Jones (John)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE |
| Judgment Date | 22 March 1974 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1974] EWCA Crim J0322-1 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 54/R/74, 111/R/74 172/R/74, 173/R/74 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
| Date | 22 March 1974 |
[1974] EWCA Crim J0322-1
The Lord Chief Justice of England (Lord Widgery)
Lord Justice James
and
Mr. Justice Kerr
Nos. 54/R/74, 111/R/74
112/R/74, 171/R/74
172/R/74, 173/R/74
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
MR. D. TURNER-SAMUELS, Q.C. and MR. J.L. REIDE appeared on behalf of the Applicants.
MR. F. M. DRAKE, Q.C. and MR. J.D.A. FENNELL appeared as Counsel for the Crown.
It is not the general practice for this Court, when dealing with an application for a certificate of a point of law for consideration of the House of Lords, to give reasons, but in deference to the argument which has been pressed upon us on a previous occasion and today, we will say a word or two about the matters involved.
The first question which we are asked to certify is, we think, in substance this question: whether upon the facts of this case there was a continuous unlawful assembley or not. So expressed of course it cannot be a point for the House of Lords, because it is not a point of law of general public importance at all, and although we have approached this matter most sympathetically and with a desire not in any way to be obstructive, we find it impossible, merely because of the general way in which the point is put, to turn what is essentially a question of fact and degree into a point of law, whether certifiable or not.
As regards point number two, the subject matter here is whether or not the charge was properly pleaded, and whether or not the Judge in his handling of the case may have produced a situation in which the verdict returned by the jury was unsafe or unsatisfactory. So far as the initial consideration of the face of the indictment is concerned, it is not seriously disputed that that is a matter of law for the Judge, and the Judge's decision, if called upon to make one at the end of the case for the Prosecution, is again one which he has to make and certainly at that stage does not become a point for the jury.
Furthermore, we do not see how the jury's verdict in a case of this kind is to be affected by the question of whether the indictment in the end...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R v Stewart (D)
...dicta of Paull J. applied. (12) R. v. HammersleyUNK(1958), 42 Cr. App. R. 207; [1958] Crim. L.R. 422, applied. (13) R. v. JonesUNK(1974), 59 Cr. App. R. 120; [1974] I.C.R. 310, applied. (14) R. v. Keen, English Court of Appeal, November 5th, 1999, Transcript No. 99/5711/12/13/S3, unreported......
- Horrix v Malam
-
Maycock et Al v Commissioner of Police
... ... The case of Jones and Others (1974) 59 Cr App R 120 spoke to the point three years before the Practice Direction was issued. James, L.J. in the course of delivering ... ...
- Barker v R