R v Maxwell (Note)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Viscount Dilhorne,Lord Hailsham of St. Marylebone,Lord Edmund-Davies,Lord Fraser of Tullybelton,Lord Scarman |
| Judgment Date | 19 October 1978 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1978] UKHL J1019-1 |
| Date | 19 October 1978 |
| Court | House of Lords |
[1978] UKHL J1019-1
Viscount Dilhorne
Lord Hailsham of St. Marylebone
Lord Edmund-Davies
Lord Fraser of Tullybelton
Lord Scarman
House of Lords
Upon Report from the Appellate Committee to whom was referred the Cause Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland against Maxwell, That the Committee had heard Counsel on Monday the 24th day of July last upon the Petition and Appeal of James Charles Maxwell of 461, Fairmount Drive, Antrim, in the County of Antrim, in Northern Ireland praying that the matter of the Order set forth in the Schedule thereto, namely an Order of Her Majesty's Court of Criminal Appeal in Northern Ireland of the 17th day of January 1978 might be reviewed before Her Majesty the Queen in Her Court of Parliament and that the said Order might be reversed, varied or altered or that the Petitioner might have such other relief in the premises as to Her Majesty the Queen in Her Court of Parliament might seem meet; and Counsel having been heard on behalf of the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland the Respondent to the said Appeal; and due consideration had this day of what was offered on either side in this Cause:
It is Ordered and Adjudged, by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in the Court of Parliament of Her Majesty the Queen assembled, That the said Order of Her Majesty's Court of Criminal Appeal in Northern Ireland of the 17th day of January 1978 complained of in the said Appeal be, and the same is hereby, Affirmed and that the said Petition and Appeal be, and the same is hereby, dismissed this House.
My Lords,
The appellant was convicted on the following two counts of an indictment at the Belfast City Commission in October 1976. They read as follows: —
FIRST COUNT
STATEMENT OF OFFENCE
Doing an act with intent, contrary to section 3( a) of the Explosive Substances Act 1883.
PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE
James Charles Maxwell, on the 3 January 1976, in the county of Antrim, unlawfully and maliciously did an act with intent to cause by explosive substances, namely a pipe bomb, an explosion in the United Kingdom of a nature likely to endanger life or cause serious injury to property, in that he placed the said pipe bomb with fuse lit inside the premises known as the Crosskeys Inn, at Toomebridge, in the said county.
SECOND COUNT
STATEMENT OF OFFENCE
Possession of explosive substance with intent, contrary to section 3( b) of the Explosive Substances Act 1883.
PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE
James Charles Maxwell, on the 3 January 1976, in the county of Antrim, unlawfully and maliciously had in his possession or under his control a pipe bomb with intent by means thereof to endanger life or cause serious injury to property in the United Kingdom or to enable any other person by means thereof to endanger life or cause serious injury to property in the United Kingdom.
No objection could be taken to the form of these counts as by statute aiders and abetters can be charged as principals, but the Particulars to each count give no indication of the case the prosecution intended to present and which the appellant had to meet. In the Particulars to the first count, he is charged with placing the bomb in the Crosskeys Inn; in the Particulars to the second with having had it in his possession or under his control. The prosecution did not attempt to prove that he had placed the bomb or that he had been present when the bomb was put in the inn, nor was any attempt made to establish that at any time he had the bomb in his possession or under his control. It is desirable that the particulars of the offence should bear some relation to the realities and where, as here, it is clear that the appellant was alleged to have aided and abetted the placing of the bomb and its possession or control, it would in my opinion have been better if the particulars of offence had made that clear.
At the trial before MacDermott J. the appellant did not give evidence and did not make a statement. The evidence given for the prosecution may be summarised as follows. At about 9.40 p.m. on the 3rd January, Mr. Stinson, a Roman Catholic, and the proprietor of the Crosskeys Inn, which is on the road from Randalstown to Portglenone, saw a light coloured sports car driven slowly past the front of the inn. It went on some 200 yards, turned around, came back, and turned into Crosskeys Road, where according to Mr. Stinson it stopped. He was suspicious and went towards it. He got quite close when it turned and drove off fast towards Randalstown. He said that the car had a dark roof. Some 7 to 10 minutes later Mr. Stinson saw a silver coloured car coming from the Randalstown direction. It stopped in Crosskeys Road. Someone got out, ran across to the inn, returned and got back into the car, which then drove off rapidly. There were 3 persons in the car. Mr. Stinson then heard glass breaking and saw people running from the bar of the Inn.
At that time Mr. Eamon Stinson, his son, was in the bar, in which there were some 30 to 40 people. He heard what he thought was someone tripping over a seat in the hallway and he went out to see what was happening. He saw a pipe lying in the hall with a fuse which was burning coming from it. He tried to put the fuse out by stamping on it, but failed to do so. With great presence of mind he took the burning fuse in his hand and pulled it. It came out of the pipe with a detonator attached and he threw them both into the road where the detonator exploded.
The pipe was made of steel and was about 18 inches long and 4 inches in diameter. It contained an explosive. There is no doubt that the bomb was put in the hall by the person whom Mr. Stinson had seen get out of the silver coloured car and run across to the inn.
On the 21st January, the appellant was seen by the police at Antrim police station. He was cautioned and at first refused to answer any questions. Then he answered some by nodding or shaking his head. At 9.15 p.m. he asked to see Detective Constable Taylor alone. He did so and he then answered a number of questions put to him by the Detective Constable. He disclosed that he was a member of the Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF), and later that night signed a statement in which he said that he had joined the UVF in 1972 and was still a volunteer. The UVF was then a proscribed organisation which engaged in terrorist activities. According to D/Supt. Hylands it had been responsible for murders and attempted murders involving in most cases the use of firearms and for sectarian bombings of premises owned by Roman Catholics, in some cases the premises being public houses.
It is not necessary to state all the questions put to the appellant and his answers to them, for his answers were mostly embodied in a statement he made the next morning and which was taken down in writing and signed by him. At the end of the questioning he was asked:
"Did you know what was going to be done"?
His answer was:
"No, I knew something was on but nobody told me what it was. I've told you all I was told. I should not have been on that job at all."
His statement was as follows:
"At 7 o'clock in the evening of 3 January 1976 a man called at my house and told me to take my car and follow him to the Dunadry area. When we got to Dunadry this man told me that I was to follow him for a distance and after he turned off the road on the Ballymena side of Kells I was to guide a car travelling behind me to the Crosskeys bar. He told me that when I did this I should go home. The car he mentioned, a silver Cortina, was waiting at Dunadry when we arrived. It looked like there were three or four people in the car. They seemed to be all men. None of the men in this car were local men, and I did not know what job they were going to do. The three cars then drove off towards Ballymena and I guided this other car to the Crosskeys bar. When I got to the bar I did not stop, but drove on home. After I passed the bar, the car was no longer behind me. I later heard that this was an attempt to bomb the bar but the bomb did not go off. I want to say that just after the death of my father I was told by my O.C. that I would not be used for any further military actions and that I would be doing welfare work only. I therefore should not have been used on this job and do not know why I was told to go on this job. I think it was about nine o'clock when I arrived at Crosskeys bar. I used my own car for this, it is a white MGB GT."
He also said that his sports car had a white top.
At the trial, Mr. Kennedy for the appellant, submitted that there was no evidence that the appellant knew the nature of the job that was to be done or that he knew of the presence of the bomb in the Cortina and that he could not be convicted of aiding and abetting in the commission of crimes of which he was ignorant. In the course of a careful and thorough judgment this submission was rejected by MacDermott J. It was repeated before the Court of Criminal Appeal in Northern Ireland and rejected by them. They, however, certified that the following point of law of general public importance was involved, namely:
"If the crime committed by the principal, and actually assisted by the accused, was one of a number of offences, one of which the accused knew the principal would probably commit, is the guilty mind which must be proved against an accomplice thereby proved against the accused?"
Mr. Kennedy repeated his submission in this House. Before I refer to it further, I should state the inferences drawn by MacDermott J. from the admissions of the appellant and the rest of the evidence. They were as follows:
"1. The 'job' which the accused describes was one organised by and carried out by members of the UVF.
2. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R v Slack
... ... Nor was the Court's attention drawn to the decision of the House of Lords in the case of Maxwell (1978) 68 Cr. App. R. 142. It was accordingly held in that case of Barr and Others that where it is appropriate to direct a jury on ... ...
-
Queen v Brian Shivers
... ... authority on the mental element necessary to establish liability as a secondary party for a crime committed by a terrorist group is DPP v Maxwell [1978] ... 7 1 WLR 1350. The appellant in that case was a member of an illegal organisation which had been responsible for sectarian murders and ... ...
-
Dick et Al v R
... ... After an adjournment for fifteen minutes, the trial judge announced his refusal of the application, and his brief explanatory note reads: “Court exercises its discretion.” The application was clearly founded on the provisions of the Criminal Law (Procedure) Act , Chapter ... 247 Noor Mohamed's appeal was allowed. In Maxwell v. Director of Public Prosecutions [1935] A.C. 309 , Lord Sankey, L.C, said at p. 320: “It is of the utmost importance for a ... ...
-
Shannon v Fanning
...under a count charging the commission of the substantive offence although such a practice is not approved (see R. v. Maxwell 1978 1 W.L.R. 1350). 17(3) Prior to the Criminal Jurisdiction Act 1975 such a prosecution did not require the special leave of the Attorney General for 18(4) By reas......
-
Secondary Liability In The Criminal Law
...This statement of principle was subsequently approved by the House of Lords in two cases: Churchill [1967] 2 A.C. 224 and Maxwell [1978] 1 WLR 1350. It is therefore necessary to establish what is meant by the "essential matters" and what is meant by In their report on secondary participatio......
-
Placing bankers in the front line: the secondary liability of bankers for their customers’ regulatory contravent
...Smith, Chs 6 ±8.(74) See Bainbridge [1960] 1 QB 129, pp. 133±34 per Lord ParkerCJ and, more recently, DPP for Northern Ireland v Maxwell[1978] 1 WLR 1350 (HL).(75) For example, to induce a breach of contract the defendantmust know of the contract and intend to procure its breach:Lumley v Gy......
-
Unlawfulness’s Doctrinal and Normative Irrelevance to Complicity Liability
...I., Sc. 13.91. Section 8 of the 1861 Act was merely declaratory of the common law. Du Cros vLambourne (1907) 1 KB 40 at 44; RvMaxwell (1978) 1 WLR 1350 at 1359; likewise the Australian provisions see Giorgianni vR(1985) 156 CLR 473 at para. 7.None of the earlier enactments included a joint ......
-
Prosecuting Complicity
...merely risk it.) It seems to be a straightforward case of intentional encouragement as66. RvJogee [2016] 2 WLR 681, 706.67. [1978] 1 WLR 1350.68. Above n. 11 at 22.69. RvMontague [2013] EWCA Crim 1781; RvGiannetto [1997] 1 Cr App R 1; Mohan vR[1967] 2 AC 187; Smith vMellors(1987) 84 Cr App ......
-
Did September 11 change everything? Struggling to preserve Canadian values in the face of terrorism.
...of the dangerous act which was being undertaken"). See also Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland v. Maxwell, [1978] 3 All E.R. 1140, [1978] 1 W.L.R. 1350 (H.L.) (accomplice liability in a terrorist operation when the accused did not know the exact means of the I acknowledge ......