R v Springfield
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE SACHS |
| Judgment Date | 29 July 1969 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1969] EWCA Crim J0729-2 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
| Date | 29 July 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 1886/69 |
[1969] EWCA Crim J0729-2
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Lord Justice Sachs
Lord Justice Karminski
and
Mr. Justice Nield
No. 1886/69
MR. D.A. PAIBA appeared on behalf of the Appellant.
MR. A. LEWISOHN appeared on behalf of the Crown.
The appellant was arraigned on the 13th February 1969 at the Central Criminal Court on a single count charging him with simple robbery. It is not necessary to recite the particular facts which were put before the jury because for the purposes of this appeal it is sufficient to say that the defence was that there had been no robbery or attempt to rob but merely a common assault. Upon a submission by the defence that upon the indictment it was not open to the jury to convict of such an assault the trial Judge ruled to the contrary. The jury were then directed that in addition to verdicts of guilty and not guilty it was open to them to return as alternative verdicts either guilty of assault with intent to rob or guilty of common assault. The jury returned verdicts of not guilty of robbery, not guilty of assault with intent to rob, but guilty of common assault: a sentence of two months' imprisonment suspended for two years was imposed.
The appellant now appeals to this Court, the trial Judge having granted a Certificate in the following terms:- "Whether I was right in ruling that by virtue of Section 6(3) of the Criminal Law Act, 1967, it was open to the jury to convict the appellant of common assault when the indictment contained the one count, namely robbery, contrary to Section 23(1)(a) of the Larceny Act, 1916." Section 6(3) reads:- "Where, on a person's trial on indictment for any offence except treason or murder, the jury find him not guilty of the offence specifically charged in the indictment, but the allegations in the indictment amount to or include (expressly or by implication) an allegation of another offence falling within the jurisdiction of the court of trial, the jury may find him guilty of that other offence or of an offence of which he could be found guilty on an indictment specifically charging that other offence." At the material times Section 23(1)(a) of the Larceny Act, 1916 was in force, and so far as material reads:- "Every person who … being together with one other person or more, robs, or assaults with intent to rob any person … shall be guilty of felony." Section 44(1), which provides that on the trial of indictment for robbery the jury may acquit the defendant of that offence and find him guilty of an assault with intent to rob, had been repealed. The Theft Act, 1968, had not come into force.
The indictment read as follows:- " Statement of Offence Robbery contrary to section 23(1)(a) of the Larceny Act, 1916. Particulars of Offence David Springfield on the 15th day of December 1968 together with another person robbed Marendra Nath Sharma of £11." It is to be observed that there was no allegation in this indictment of the appellant being armed with an offensive weapon or instrument or having immediately before or immediately after such robbery used personal violence.
The question accordingly arises as follows. Where an indictment thus charges a major offence without setting out any particulars of the matters relied upon, what is the correct test for ascertaining whether it contains allegations which expressly or impliedly include an allegation of a lesser offence? The test is to see whether it is a necessary step towards establishing the major offence to prove the commission of the lesser offence: in other words, is the lesser offence an essential ingredient of the major one? To take obvious examples, it is impossible to establish larceny from the person without proving a larceny. Similarly one cannot establish a wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm without proving as steps in ascending order a common assault,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R v Wilson (Clarence) ; R v Edward John Jenkins ; R v Ronald Patrick Jenkins
...bound by the earlier decision in Wilson. Stated briefly, the reason was that the decision of the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) in Springfield (1969) 53 Cr.App.R. 608 made it impossible to justify a conviction for assault occasioning actual bodily harm, contrary to section 47 of the O......
-
R v Lillis
...he could not he convicted of any offence. In putting his case in this way he was seeking to apply what Lord Justice Sachs had said in Springfield, (1969) 53 Criminal Appeal Reports 608 at page 611, namely "The test is to see whether it is a necessary step towards establishing the major offe......
-
R v Wilson (Clarence) ; R v Edward John Jenkins ; R v Ronald Patrick Jenkins
...actual bodily harm? I have already recited in full the words in the particulars of offence in the indictment. 14 In the case of R v. Springfield (1969) Crim.App.R. at 610, Sachs, L.J. put the matter in this way: "Where an indictment thus charges a major offence without setting out any parti......
-
R v McCready
...could find himguilty of common assault. Two cases in this Court, Austin and Lambert provide the answer which is "no". Both cases followed Springfield (1969) 53 Criminal Appeal Reports, page 608, This case was cited with approval in Lillis (1972) 56 Criminal Appeal Reports, page 573 at page ......
-
Offences against the Person: Into the 21st Century
...461, which wasapproved in Wilson.25 In favour were R v Taylor (1869) LR 1 CCR 194, R v Clarence (1888) 22 QBD 23, R vSpringfield (1969) 53 Cr App R 608, R v Snewing [1972] Crim LR 267, R v McCready[1978] 1 WLR 1383 and R v Beasley (1981) 73 Cr App R 44. Cases to the contrarywere: R v Halli......