R v Paul William Whiteshaw and Another

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
CourtCourt of Criminal Appeal
Judgment Date20 Dec 1966
Judgment citation (vLex)[1966] EWCA Crim J1220-1
Docket NumberNo. 2888/66

[1966] EWCA Crim J1220-1



Royal Courts of Justice


Lord Justice Winn

Mr. Justice Lawton


Mr. Justice James

No. 2888/66

No. 3006/66

Paul William Whiteshaw
Roger Charles Amos

MR. R.J.H. GIBBS appeared as Counsel for the Appellants.

MR. R.J. TOYN appeared as Counsel for the Crown.


In these two appeals made by two Appellants, only one ground of appeal is now pursued by Mr. Gibbs, who has put that ground very well and clearly.


The grounds put forward by the men themselves are no longer pursued. 2hey both applied for leave to appeal against conviction and also against sentence, but the sontence applications are now withdrawn. She single Judge gave each of them leave to appeal against convict-Ion, ho, as a matter of interest, taking the sane point that has been taken by Mr. Gibbs today; that is to say, that the direction of the learned Deputy Chairman at Warwickshire Quarter Sessions – where they were tried on the 23rd September of this year – merited the consideration of the full Court on the direction with regard to onus and standard of proof.


I propose first to outline the facts and then come to a consideration of the ground of appeal.


They were convicted of malicious wounding of one Thomas Murphy. Apparently at about a quarter-to-midnight on the 20th July, Mr. Murphy (who was the head porter at an hotel in Sutton Coldfield in Warwickshire) came back to the annexe in which he lived with a friend, a Mr. Calces. They had been to a public house but there was no suggestion that either of them was the worse for drink. When they got back to the annexe, they met these two Appellants, asked them why they were tbere and one or other of them said that they had been invited to a party in the annexe by the hotel barman. Mr. Murphy said: "No parties here at this time of night", or some such words, and went off up the road to speak to the manager of the hotel. Mr. Oakes went off to bed. One of the Appellants — and it is fair to say that Mr. Murphy's identification as to which one it was varied from the time when he gave evidence at the Magistrates' Court to that when he gave evidence at the trial (at trial he thought it was Amos) – went after Mr. Murphy, brought him back to the annexe, having put a hand on his shoulder (there was some difference of opinion as to whether it was a friendly laying-on of a hand upon the shoulder) and took him upstairs in the annexe, it seems to have been common ground, having at that time both his hands on his respective shoulders. Whiteshaw was then standing at the top of those stairs (apparently these men had collected some bottles, mainly Coca-Cola and were carrying them at the time). Murphy received two severe blows on. his head and fell down, Cakos, his friend, came out of the bedroom and saw Murphy's face covered with blood there was some difference of evidence as to whether Murphy was then on the ground or standing, Cakes, the friend, lashed out at the Appellants and Oakes and Murphy between them succeeded in pushing them down the stairs and they ran off.


Murphy's wounds were a laceration, about a quarter-of-an-inch deep, behind his ear, and another on the top of his scalp, The Doctor thought the one had been caused by a blow from the side and the other from in front, in either case by a hard, blunt object – a bottle might have done it, or a fist might have done it.


Whiteshaw's lambskin coat became stained with blood which was blood of Mr. Murphy's blood group. Neither of the Appellants suffered any injury whatsoever.


The Appellants gave evidence and gave their own version of what had happened which, in substance, amounted to this that as they were going up the stairs, or as Murphy was coming up the stairs with Amos, Murphy suddenly flailed out with his arms and knocked Amos downstairs and then there was a scuffle between Murphy and Whiteshaw and possibly self-defence explained the injury suffered by Murphy: the bottles they had because they were taking then off to the party. Amos denied police evidence of a Sergeant Wilson that he had said: "We all had a go at him".


These are young men of 20 and 23 respectively. It is not necessary to say more about their background as the application for leave to appeal against sentence has been Withdrawn, but this is not the first time that they have been before the Courts, by any means.


It is said that the direction as to onus and standard of proof was not...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT