R v Sheehan
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE GEOFFREY LANE |
| Judgment Date | 07 March 1975 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1975] EWCA Crim J0307-1 |
| Docket Number | No. 2024/B/74 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
| Date | 07 March 1975 |
[1975] EWCA Crim J0307-1
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Lord Justice Geoffrey Lane
Mr. Justice Forbes
and
Mr. Justice May
No. 2024/B/74
No. 2227/A/74
MR. E. JOWITT, Q.C. and MR. S. COWARD appeared for the Appellant Moore.
MR. I.C.R. McCULLOUGH, Q.C. and MR. I. JUDGE appeared for the Appellant Sheehan.
MR. H. SKINNER, Q.C. and MR. F. SMEDLEY appeared for the Crown.
At Lincoln Crown Court on 1st May of 1974, after a trial lasting 6 days, these Appellants were convicted of murdering a man named Neary who met his death by being soaked in petrol and then set alight. They were each sentenced to life imprisonment. Against that conviction they appeal.
The trouble all started on 30th October of 1973, when Neary was seen to steal a £1 note from the Appellant Sheehan's pocket in the bar of the Oswald Hotel at Scunthorpe. That was a Tuesday. On Thursday Sheehan was again in the Oswald with Moore, and was told what Neary had done. The same evening Mr. Omar, the licensee of the hotel (who knew these two men), overheard Sheehan speaking to Moore about burning someone out and about buying petrol. The Appellants left the hotel together about 10.45 p.m. after Sheehan had deposited £30 for safe keeping with Mr. Omar. They came back together about midnight to collect the money. By that time Neary was dead.
The movements of the two Appellants between 10.45 p.m. and midnight can, however, be traced in some detail. At about 11 p.m. they called at a taxi-office saying they had run out of petrol and asking to be driven to a garage. At the garage one of them bought a gallon of petrol in a can with a pourer built into the cap. The taxi driver then took them to a fish and chip shop. Both had obviously been drinking.
Next, still equipped with the can of petrol, they made their way together to a derelict house where (as Moore knew) Neary was living with a number of other men in conditions of squalor.
Once there one of the Appellants said "Get to hell out of it. We are burning this place down". Moore was then seen to pick up a large piece of cardboard and set fire to it; on his evidence this was to provide some light in that dark house. Neary made himself scarce, followed by Sheehan carrying the can of petrol. Moore brought up the rear still carrying the burning cardboard. Apart from the dead man and the two Appellants there were no eye witnesses of what happened thereafter.
The body was found at about 10 a.m. the next morning. It was in a passage way about 50 yards from the derelict house. The Police were called. They examined the scene with great care. There were no signs of a struggle. Combining the evidence of the pathologist with that of the Police it seemed that almost a whole gallon of petrol had found its way on to Neary's clothes and that at that time he was lying on his back on the ground, the petrol had then been ignited and Neary burnt to death. A very recent bruise on Neary's chest indicated that very shortly before his death he had been struck a severe blow by someone and everything pointed to that blow being the reason why he was on his back. The remains of the burnt cardboard were found a few yards from the body.
Sheehan's trousers were later found. They had been fused by fire to his socks. Sheehan's other clothing smelt of petrol. Moore's clothing did not. But according to Sheehan he had lent a donkey jacket to Moore and that donkey jacket certainly had traces of petrol on it.
The Appellants spent the night at Sheehan's lodgings. They parted in the morning and went their separate ways away from Scunthorpe. Moore was soon arrested by the Police and according to them at once said: "It's about that poor fucker we set light to last night". He went on to say: "We got a taxi and went for some petrol and I showed him where he was kipping - that's all".
Moore 's eye lashes and eyebrows were singed. The hair on the backs of his hands was singed. There was a smell of burning from his right hand. The doctor who examined him concluded that he had been exposed to a sudden burst of heat of short duration. He did not believe that the singeing could have been caused by the burning cardboard as Moore contended.
In short Moore told the Police, and later the jury, that he thought they were only going to burn the house. He had had a lot to drink; he was excited. He and Sheehan both followed Neary out of the house. Sheehan caught Neary and started to punch him, then poured the petrol on him and set light to it. At this time Moore was yards away from them and had no idea that this was going to happen. There was one important sentence in the written statement he made to the Police: dealing with events in the derelict house he was reported to have said: "Pipe Neary got out of bed. Mick (Sheehan) was shouting: 'I'm going to kill him'". This he denied having said.
Sheehan was also soon arrested. He had very severe burns of the left leg and less severe burns of the hands and eye lashes. He also made a statement to the Police. His version of events was that he had a bit of a fight with Neary and he dropped the petrol can. The man must have rolled in the petrol while he was fighting. Other evidence however was that the cap of the petrol can could not have come off accidentally and that Neary did not roll because his back was not burned. Sheehan in his statement to the Police was reported as saying that he was not drunk - he was mad at Neary and lost his temper with him. However he told the jury that this statement was all the result of question and answer and was not what he intended to or really did say. His case was that he did not know how the petrol got over Neary. He had no intention of killing Neary or doing him serious harm. He did not realise Neary had caught fire.
Evidence was however given of a conversation which he had with the Police at Southend after his arrest as follows: "I bought a gallon of petrol. I only meant to frighten him. Did you pour the petrol over him? I must have done."
In essence Sheehan's defence at the trial was that he had no real recollection of the material events. He was substantially affected by drink. If in truth it had been he who had doused Neary with petrol and set fire to him, then it was either an accident or, if he had acted deliberately, then by reason of the effect of the drink that he had taken he had neither the requisite intent nor foresight to found a conviction of murder.
Moore in his turn contended that he was no party to any common enterprise with Sheehan to kill Neary. All to which he was a party was to burn down the derelict house in which Neary had been living. He was a mere spectator of what took place after Sheehan followed Neary from the house and, whether as a result of the drink he had had or not, he neither intended nor indeed realised what Sheehan was doing.
In these appeals a number of criticisms have been made of the summing-up of the learned Judge. Only two have caused this Court any concern, but these were the ones upon which counsel for the Appellants principally relied and which related to the direction to the jury about the relevance of drink and its effect upon the two accused in the circumstances of this case. At the beginning of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R v Garlick
...12 The way in which Mr. Smout puts his argument is this. He relies upon two decisions of this Court: first, the case of R. v. Sheehan and R. v. Moore (1975) 1 W.L.R. 739 and secondly the unreported case of R. v. Pordage, a transcript of which we have, decided in this Court on 26th June 1975......
-
Leslie Moodie v R
...intent by reason of the alcohol which he has taken’. The court in R v Alden also referred to the decision of the Court of Appeal in R v Sheehan, R v Moore [1975] 2 All ER 960, as well as the decision of the Privy Council on appeal from the Court of Appeal of Trinidad & Tobago in Sooklal and......
- Public Prosecutor v Kenneth Fook Mun Lee @ Omar Iskandar Lee Bin Abdullah (No.2)
-
DPP v Eadon
...for the crime, but rather whether he did in fact form the intent. In this regard the Appellant has cited R v. Sheehan and Moore (1974) 60 Cr. App. R. 308, R v. Garlick (1981) 72 Cr. App. R. 291 and R v. Brown and Stratton [1998] Crim. L.R. 485 (Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, judgment o......
-
Exemplum Habemus: Reflections on the Judicial Studies Board's Specimen Directions
...Transcript No. 99/1664/Y4 at [16]. See also R (G), 17January 2000, Transcript No. 99/3565/Y5 esp. at [35–36], per Otton LJ.89 (1974) 60 Cr App R 308, 312.90 [1995] 2 Cr App R 192. See now, Practice Direction (Criminal Proceedings:Consolidation) [2002] 1 WLR 2870, Part 44.91 Similarly, Speci......
-
Same Problem, Same Solution? The Treatment of the Voluntarily Intoxicated Offender in England and Germany
...in Germany "' R v. C. [1992] Crim LR 642; The Times 17 April 1992 (Court of Appeal). 39 R v. Cullen [19931 Crim LR 936 40 R v. Sheehan [1975] 1 WLR 739; [1975] 2 All ER 960. 41 R v. Aitken [1992] 1 WLR 1006, at 1016-1017. 42 R v. Pordage [1975] Crim LR 575. 4' R v. Aitken [1992] 1 WLR 1006,......
-
Why has the Concept of Consent Proven So Difficult to Clarify?
...under the Sexual Offences Act 2003’ (2008) 72(6) JCL 516 at 524.128. Wallerstein, above n. 122 at 322–3.129. RvSheehan, R vMoore [1975] 2 All ER 960 at 964; Bree, above n. 12 at paras 32–6. This was also true of involuntaryintoxication, see RvKingston [1993] 3 All ER 353.130. A.P. Simester ......
-
Diminished Responsibility: No Defence without Evidence
...Responsibility: No Defence without Evidencean example of the situation described by Lane LJ (as he then was) in R v Sheehan [1975] 1 WLR 739 when he said:Indeed, in cases where drunkenness and its possible effect upon the defendant’s mens rea is an issue, we think that the proper direction ......