R v Moon
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE SALMON |
| Judgment Date | 08 July 1969 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1969] EWCA Crim J0708-3 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
| Docket Number | No. 2734/69 |
| Date | 08 July 1969 |
[1969] EWCA Crim J0708-3
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Lord Justice Salmon
Lord Justice Megaw
and
Mr. Justice O'Connor
No. 2734/69
MR. A. RAWLEY appeared on behalf of the Appellant.
MR. PURVIS appeared on behalf of the Crown.
On 10th April, 1969 at the Plymouth City Quarter Sessions, the Appellant was convicted of an assault occasioning actual bodily harm and was sentenced to three months' imprisonment, and a sentence of three months' imprisonment for a similar offence which had been suspended for two years about a year before, in 1968, was ordered to take effect consecutively.
The Appellant appeals against his conviction on the ground that the Assistant Recorder misdirected the Jury on the law of self-defence.
It is necessary to say just a word about the facts of the case. Apparently two families, one the Elphick family, and the other the McGowans, lived next door to each other in Plymouth, and they had been annoyed for some time during the evenings by persons throwing things at their windows. On 29th November, apparently, someone threw something at a window of the house occupied by the Elphicks, and the Elphicks and the McGowans poured into the street to see if they could discover who it was who had been annoying them. Standing on the pavement was the Appellant. Apparently it was his companion who had been amusing himself by throwing pennies or pebbles or whatever it may have been at the windows of the unfortunate Elphicks. He volunteered who was that the man/responsible for the trouble had rushed off in a certain direction which he indicated, which was not the direction which his companion had followed. As Mr. Rawley says, this was a very stupid thing for the Appellant to have done.
Now the various members of the Elphick and the McGowan families having fruitlessly pursued the course indicated by the Appellant returned to their homes to find the Appellant still there and he then suggested they might try another direction, and they did, with no result. Young Elphick - Brian Elphick - was not unnaturally incensed because by this time he had realised that the Appellant had purposely sent him on a wild goose chase, and he was quite obviously all out to express his displeasure to the Appellant rather forcefully. He went to the Appellant, perhaps not altogether surprisingly, and they grappled together, but nothing very much came of that except that the Appellant did get a split lip. Young Elphick retired to the family group, standing close to and slightly behind his father.
The Appellant then went over to the family group to talk to the father, and all the witnesses for the Prosecution conceded that at this stage the Appellant was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Price v The State
-
R. v. Griffin (J.) et al., (2009) 388 N.R. 334 (SCC)
...1; 403 W.A.C. 1; 2007 SCC 28, refd to. [para. 66]. R. v. Corbett, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 670; 85 N.R. 81, refd to. [para. 72]. R. v. Moon, [1969] 3 All E.R. 803 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 83]. R. v. Seguin (1979), 45 C.C.C.(2d) 498 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 83]. R. v. Boyd (J.D.) (1999), 118 O.A.C......
-
Price v The State
...1 Leach 500. Courts have often been understandably reluctant to infer knowledge of impending death from surrounding circumstances [See R. v. Morgan, (1875) 14 Cox 337] but this was done in R. v. Bonner, 172 E.R. 1288. The instant matter, in my opinion, is not one in which that inference cou......
-
Criminal Appeal No. 34 of 1978
...case, of, Ramroop v. The Queen, (1963) 6 W.I.R. 425 which was followed by the Court of Jamaica in R. v. Bromfield, (1965) 8 W.I.R. 273, R. v. Powe, ibid, at p. 395, and R. v. Plinton, (1965) 9 W.I.R. 44. In Ramroop, Bromfield, Powe and Plinton the jury were instructed, in effect, that to......