R v Lewis
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 10 November 1992 |
| Date | 10 November 1992 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
Court of Appeal
Before Lord Justice Beldam, Mr Justice Ian Kennedy and Mr Justice Morland
Contempt of court - defence - victim of attack - refusal through fear of reprisal
In proceedings for contempt of court brought against the appellant, the victim of a savage attack who had refused to give evidence at the trial of his attacker, his counsel made it clear to the judge that the reason for his refusal was his fear of reprisal.
That was a reason which was capable, if substantiated, of amounting to a defence to the charge of contempt: see R v KUNK ((1983) 78 Cr App R 82) and Rv HudsonELR ([1971] 2 QB 202).
The Court of Appeal so stated when giving reasons for allowing, on July 31, the appeal of James John Lewis against a finding of contempt of court by Judge Lightfoot at Leeds Crown Court on July 30, 1991 on which a sentence of nine months imprisonment was imposed, ordered to be served consecutively to 12 years imprisonment imposed on March 14, 1990 at the same court for an offence of robbery.
Mr Benjamin Nolan, QC and Mr Patrick Robertshaw for the appellant; Mr James Richardson as amicus curiae.
LORD JUSTICE BELDAM, giving the judgment of the court, said that the appellant had been slashed with a knife in a prison exercise yard, sustaining very serious injuries.
His attacker was an accomplice in the armed robbery, also serving a 12-year sentence.
Having regard to the serious attack the appellant had already suffered it was not difficult to imagine the reason for his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R v Smith (Brian Peter)
...We have been referred to two cases which are difficult if not impossible to reconcile: R -v- Callaghan [1992] 94 Cr App R 226 and R -v- Lewis [1991] 95 Cr App R 131. In R -v- Callaghanthis court held that the last count in the indictment was improperly joined and quashed that count. In R -v......
-
R v Montgomery
...not a consideration which arises in this case, it has repeatedly been made clear (see for instance Phillips, Moran (1985) 81 Cr.App.R. 51 and Lewis (1993) 96 Cr.App.R. 412) that unless there are good reasons for dealing with the matter quickly, the question of sentence upon the contemnor is......
-
R v Henry Paul McGrath
...of the same or similar character. The decision in R v Walton [2011] EWCA Crim 2832 was cited as an example of this principle. See also R v Lewis [1992] 95 Cr App R 17 Accordingly, Section 40(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 could not justify the inclusion of the criminal damage charge o......