R v Jones (Terence)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | MR. JUSTICE McCOWAN,LORD JUSTICE WATKINS |
| Judgment Date | 13 March 1986 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1986] EWCA Crim J0313-5 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 6257 & 6258/C/85, 6350/B/85, 6260, 6859 & 6051/C/85 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
| Date | 13 March 1986 |
[1986] EWCA Crim J0313-5
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Lord Justice Watkins
Mr. Justice McCowan
and
Mr. Justice Otton
Nos. 6257 & 6258/C/85, 6350/B/85, 6260, 6859 & 6051/C/85
MR. A. ARLIDGE Q.C. and MR. J. PINI appeared on behalf of the Appellants.
MR. F. MITCHELL appeared on behalf of the Crown.
On 19th September 1985 in the Crown Court at Snaresbrook before H.H. Judge Mota Singh the appellants pleaded guilty to certain counts in an indictment. This was a change of plea consequent upon certain rulings of the judge on submissions in law made after the close of the prosecution case. On 20th September 1985 on counts 3 and 4, which charged inflicting grievous bodily harm, Jones was sentenced to 6 months' youth custody on each count concurrent and concurrent with the sentence he was then serving; Campbell, Nicholas and Blackwood on the same two counts were each conditionally discharged for 2 years and ordered to pay £50 to each victim. Smith and Muir on count 3 alone were each conditionally discharged for 2 years. They all appeal against conviction by leave of the single judge.
The events in question took place on 11th July 1984. At the time Jones was aged 17, Campbell, Nicholas and Blackwood 16, Smith 15 and Muir 14. They were former pupils of Brampton Manor School in East London who regularly met at the "Shack" - a youth club in the school grounds. During the midday break on 11th July 1984 outside that youth club they engaged in certain activities with two boys, one Samuel Ricketts, aged 14 (the victim in count 3) and another Tony Abbot, aged 15 (the victim in count 4). This activity involved throwing the boys into the air. Ricketts, who was thrown on three separate occasions, sustained a ruptured spleen which necessitated a surgical operation for its removal. Abbot suffered a broken arm.
The prosecution evidence was as follows: Ricketts said that he was approached by the appellant Muir, who was a friend of his. Muir caught hold of him and held him in a head lock. This was described by Ricketts as "play fighting". The other appellants followed and took hold of his legs, pulling him to the ground. They then threw him up in the air some 9 or 10 feet, They let him come down on his own and he landed upright on the grass. He was protesting and trying to get away, but he was punched and kicked and then he was seized hold of and tossed into the air again, rising to between 9 or 10 feet and falling to the grass on his own. On the last throw he twisted as he came down and landed on his stomach, face down with his legs twisted. He managed to run to a friend but collapsed. He was taken to hospital where an operation was necessary to remove his spleen.
Abbot was walking past the group when they grabbed him by the arms and marched him to a piece of grass. They then tripped him up and pulled him to the ground. A dinner lady approached and asked the appellants what they were doing. One of them replied that it was Abbot's birthday and that they were going to bump him. They then threw him into the air. He landed sideways with his left arm under him. He was taken to hospital where he was treated for a fracture of the upper left arm.
The appellants were subsequently arrested and interviewed. It is unnecessary to go in any detail into what they said. In general, their account was that the whole escapade was a joke and that they had had no intention of causing their victims any serious harm, though they anticipated that they might get the odd bruise, as boys do in playground roughness. They thought that it was being taken as a joke by their victims. True, their victims protested and claimed that they were being hurt, but that was common form among the boys in order to achieve an escape. Some at least of the appellants said that they thought that the victims were consenting to what occurred.
That was the state of the evidence at the close of the prosecution case when lengthy submissions were made to the judge by counsel then appearing for the various appellants as to the law applicable to the facts of the case. In the first place the various counsel then appearing for the appellants indicated that the defence was that although the appellants had foreseen discomfort, bumps and bruises resulting from their activities, they had not foreseen really serious injury. Counsel invited the judge to direct the jury that if they thought this might be so, they should acquit. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- R v Aitken ; R v Bennett ; R v Barson
-
R v Brown Lucas Jaggard Laskey Carter (Conjoined Appeals)
...involved. I think it hopeless to attempt any explanation in terms of consent. This is well illustrated by Reg. v. Terence Jones (1986) 83 Cr.App.R. 375. The injured children did not consent to being thrown in the air at all, nor to the risk that they might be thrown so high as to cause ser......
-
DPP v Brown
...of a legal right, in the case of chastisement or correction, or as needed in the public interest, in other cases.’ 29 In R v. Jones [1986] 83 Cr.App.R. 375, the activities of rough and undisciplined horseplay were added to this list of exceptions. 30 The issue of the relationship between ss......
-
The Queen v William Ryan Erisman
...and the conviction quashed. (1) [1847] C.L.C. 262 (2) [1934] 2 K.B. 498 (3) [1882] 8 Q.B.D. 534 (4) [1981] 73 Cr App. R. 63 (5) [1986] 83 Cr.App.R. 375 Representation: A. Bell (Haldane Midgley & Cheung) for Appellant A.A. Bruce, Senior Crown Counsel, with V. Yim, Crown Counsel, for Respondent ...
-
Bareback Sex in the Age of Preventative Medication: Rethinking the ‘Harms’ of HIV Transmission
...that the heteronormative standards of the court were at play in78. R v Clarence (n 64).79. R v Brown (n 70).80. Ibid.81. Jones [1986] 83 Cr App R 375 (CA).82. R v Brown (n 70) 266 Per Lord Mustill.83. Ibid.84. This in itself being objectionable because it leaves the difference between a len......
-
Recent Judicial Decisions
...concerned, includingthe victim. This could be construedasconsentto whathappened. The JudgeAdvocatehadfailed,asrequiredby R. v,Jones(1986) 83 Cr. App. R. 375, to direct the court to considerwhether there had been consent, and thatifnot, whether those chargedgenuinelybelieved, reasonablyor no......