R v Thornton (No. 2)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE |
| Judgment Date | 13 December 1995 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1995] EWCA Crim J1213-1 |
| Docket Number | No. 95/3108/X2 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
| Date | 13 December 1995 |
[1995] EWCA Crim J1213-1
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL CRIMINAL DIVISION
Before: The Lord Chief Justice of England (Lord Taylor of Gosforth) Mr Justice Hidden and Mrs Justice Ebsworth
No. 95/3108/X2
MR MICHAEL MANSFIELD QC and MR EDWARD H FITZGERALD QC appeared on behalf of THE APPELLANT
MR B ESCOTT COX QC and MR J GIBSON appeared on behalf of THE CROWN
Wednesday 13 December 1995
THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE: Sara Thornton appeals against her conviction of murdering her husband Malcolm Thornton. The case has been referred to the Court by the Secretary of State pursuant to Section 17 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968. The appellant was convicted on 23 February 1990 at Birmingham Crown Court after a nine-day trial. There was an appeal which was dismissed by a different constitution of this Court on 29 July 1991. Subsequently, representations were made to the Secretary of State on the appellant's behalf. They were based primarily upon further medical evidence and its impact on the defence of provocation, a defence which was not relied upon by the appellant at her trial although it was left to the jury by the judge.
In August 1993 the Secretary of State decided not to refer the case back to this Court. Further representations followed and on 12 May 1995 the present reference was made.
The appellant comes from a comfortable background but from childhood onwards her life was punctuated by problems and unhappy incidents. She was asked to leave her Boarding School. She twice had pregnancies which were terminated before meeting her first husband by whom she had her one child, Luisa. She went abroad with that husband but left him in Venezuela because of his drinking and there was a divorce. She made a number of attempts at suicide by cutting her wrists, by cutting her throat and by overdose of drugs. In March 1981 she was admitted to a hospital for a period under the Mental Health Act. She had a third abortion in 1983. It was common ground that this history was attributable to the fact that the appellant suffered and continues to suffer from a personality disorder, although after 1981 there appeared generally to be some improvement in her mental state.
She met the deceased, her second husband, in May 1987. Like her, he had been married before and he had a son Martin aged 18. The appellant and the deceased began living together in the Autumn of 1987 and were married in August 1988. Even before the marriage, it was clear that the deceased had a serious drink problem. He underwent treatment for alcoholism but his condition and behaviour deteriorated in 1989. As a result the marriage was stormy. There were angry arguments when the deceased was drunk and he used violence to the appellant. In her evidence she described a number of assaults. It is unnecessary to specify all the incidents prior to the final weekend but about 20 May the appellant left the house (which was in their joint names) after the deceased had punched her in the face and knocked her out. She reported that incident to the police and the deceased was charged with assault. The case was pending at the time of his death. After the appellant left, the deceased's son Martin came to stay at the house. On 26 May the appellant and her daughter returned.
Matters came to a head between Saturday 10 and Tuesday 13 June. On the Saturday, the appellant was attending a conference in Coventry in connection with her work. According to her, she learnt by telephone that the deceased had either assaulted Luisa or otherwise driven her from the home so that she was in night-clothes at a taxi rank. Mrs Thomas, a friend and fellow employee of the appellant, gave evidence that the appellant said after the phone call "I am going to kill him", adding that she was not prepared to lose everything. The appellant, in evidence, denied saying these things.
On 11 June she returned home accompanied by Mrs Thomas. The deceased had been drinking and there was an angry altercation. It continued after Mrs Thomas left. The deceased picked up a guitar and threatened to hit the appellant with it. She had a kitchen knife in her hand. According to Martin, she said "You touch my daughter, you bastard, and I'll kill you", pointing the knife at the deceased and holding it in both hands. Martin claimed he had to take the knife from her. The appellant's account was that she had the knife in the normal course of preparing lunch, that she made no threat to kill the deceased and was not disarmed by Martin. On the same day, when the deceased was in the bath, the appellant gave him Mogadon tablets. Martin saw her administer two, but she crushed four more and concealed them amongst pieces of chicken she fed to the deceased. She then telephoned the doctor saying he had taken an overdose and was suicidal which, as she admitted in evidence, was a deliberate lie. An ambulance and the police were called but the deceased refused to go to hospital. After they left there was an angry scene. The deceased threw a chair which broke the glass in the kitchen door. The police were called again.
Still later on that day, the appellant spoke to Mrs Thomas on the telephone. According to the latter, the appellant talked of divorce, said she was not prepared to give everything up for the deceased and that she would set about forging some cheques. In evidence the appellant denied that account of the conversation.
Next day, 12 June, according to the appellant, the deceased said he wanted her and her daughter out of the house. He then went drinking. On his return, he was sick in the kitchen, he later burnt a hole in the armchair and he spent the night on the couch.
Tuesday 13th brought the fatal dénouement. The deceased was again drunk. When he arrived home he noticed the appellant was not wearing her wedding ring. She said they did not have much of a marriage. He then threw his wedding ring into the garden. He abused the appellant telling her to get out and take Luisa. Clothes were thrown out of the window. Luisa left. The appellant spoke to Mrs Thomas on the telephone saying "I'm going to have to do what I said I'd do". The appellant said in evidence that meant merely that she going to leave. She wrote in lipstick on her bedroom mirror: "Bastard Thornton, I hate you". Later, she and Martin went out leaving the deceased dozing on the couch. Martin returned home first and went upstairs. The appellant got a taxi home. The taxi driver said she was arrogant and quarrelsome which she denies.
Her account in evidence of what happened after that was that she found the deceased still lying inert on the couch. She went upstairs, changed into her night-clothes and came down again to persuade the deceased to come to bed. He insulted her, calling her a whore and alleging she had been selling her body. He wanted her out of the house and threatened to kill her. She went to the kitchen to calm down. She decided to try again to persuade him to come to bed but looked for a truncheon retained from when he had been a policeman so as to protect herself if he became violent. Not finding the truncheon, she picked up a large kitchen knife. She returned to the deceased who again threatened to kill her and called her a whore. She stood beside him, lifted the knife and then brought it down slowly. A post mortem examination showed the single stab had entered just below the ribs and penetrated deeply through to the back of the ribcage. In evidence the appellant said she did not stab the deceased deliberately. She denied she did it because she was provoked or because she was mentally upset. Asked in cross-examination if it was an accident, she repeatedly said yes.
Martin, who was upstairs when the appellant came home, had heard no quarrel or raised voices. What he did hear was the rattling of cutlery in the drawer, followed by a scream from his father. He went downstairs. The appellant said in a cold matter-of-fact tone: "I've killed your father". She 'phoned for an ambulance and said "I've just killed my husband. I've stuck a six-inch carving knife in his belly on the left-hand side". The ambulance and police came. To a police officer the appellant said: "I've stabbed him with this carving knife". Asked "Have you tried to kill him?" she said: "I wanted to kill him". When the emergency service were making efforts to save him the appellant said: "I don't know why you are bothering, let him die". Martin heard her say "Let the bastard die". The police officer asked "Do you understand what you are saying?" She replied: "Yes, I know exactly what I am saying. I sharpened up the knife so I could kill him. Do you know what he has done to me in the past?" Asked "When did you sharpen the bread-knife?" she replied: "After I went to see him in there. I said are you coming to bed love and he told me to fuck off out and fuck some blokes to get some money, so I just walked into the kitchen, got the knife, sharpened it up and stuck it in his belly".
Question: "Did he beat you up tonight?"
Answer: "No".
Question: "Did he threaten to?"
Answer: "He would have".
Later, the appellant said to the police: "I nearly did it on Sunday you know". Whilst the police were at the house, the appellant behaved in a surprising, Mr Mansfield says bizarre, manner. She began to use the floor-mop, she talked about the washing, a meal, and wanting to tune the guitar. She wanted to take photographs of her husband and telephone the taxi for her handbag and cigarettes. She pinched a police officer's bottom, telling him he had "a lovely bum".
In her interviews with the police she said repeatedly she only intended to frighten her husband.
At her trial the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Luc v The Queen
-
R v Smith (Morgan James)
...Taylor of Gosforth C.J.) Reg. v. Dryden [1995] 4 All E.R. 987, Reg. v. Humphreys [1995] 4 All E.R. 1008, Reg. v. Thornton (No. 2) [1996] 2 All E.R. 1023.(See also Reg. v. Campbell [1997] 1 Cr. App. R. 199, the comments of Lord Bingham 14I cite by way of example only Reg. v. Dryden [199......
-
R v Smith (Morgan James)
...(Court of Appeal). 39 R v Dryden (1995) All ER 987 (Court of Appeal). 40 R v Humphreys (1995) 4 All ER 1008 (Court of Appeal). 41 R v Thornton (No 2) (1996) 2 Cr App R 108 (Court of Appeal). 42 R v Morhall (1996) 1 AC (House of Lords). 43 Luc Thiet Thuan v R (1997) 1 AC 131 (Privy C......
-
Holley v AG
...on a person who was not a glue-sniffer. 64 The decision of the Court of Appeal (Lord Taylor of Gosforth CJ, Hidden and Ebsworth JJ) in R v Thornton (No 2) [1996] 1 WLR 1174 succeeded that of the House in R v Morhall, above. The appellant, who had been violently abused by her husband over a......
-
Recognising the Role of the Emotion of Fear in Offences and Defences
...explicit images initially intended for private use ‘revenge43. A Read, Theatre and Law (London, Macmillan, 2015).44. R v Thornton [1996] 1 WLR 1174.45. As derived from I Goffman, The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life (Penguin, 1959). See also Read (n 43).46. J Horder, Provocation and Re......
-
Descent into Murder: Provocation's Stricture—The Prognosis for Women Who Kill Men Who Abuse Them
...[2005] UKPC 23, [2005] 2 AC 580 at [75]. R v Ahluwalia [1992] 4 All ER 889, per Lord Taylor; R v Thornton (No. 2) [1996]1 WLR 1174, [1996] 2 All ER 1023, CA, preferred justice over the dictates of logic.Lord Steyn in Luc Thiet Thuan v R [1997] AC 131, [1996] 2 All ER 1033, was ofthe same 17......
-
Mercy Killing
...only this, but the courts have already rejected opportunities to29. See Thornton (No. 1) [1992] 1 All ER 306, Thornton (No. 2) [1996] 2 All ER 1023, Ahluwalia, above n. 11, Rossiter [1994] 2All ER 752, Humphreys [1995] 4 All ER 1008.30. Mackay, above n. 6 at 294.31. Webb [2011] EWCA Crim 15......
-
Proposals for Reforming the Law of Self-Defence
...satisfied is whether the ‘scientific principle or55 Downs, above n. 44 at 242.56 Kazan, above n. 23 at 561–2.57 Rv Thornton (No. 2) [1996] 2 All ER 1023.58 For more, see P. Huber, Galileo’s Revenge: Junk Science in the Courtroom (Basic Books:New York, 1991).59 D. Bernstein, ‘Junk Science ......