R v Willer
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE WATKINS |
| Judgment Date | 25 February 1986 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1986] EWCA Crim J0225-4 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
| Docket Number | No. 2723/B/85 |
| Date | 25 February 1986 |
[1986] EWCA Crim J0225-4
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Lord Justice Watkins
Mr. Justice Garland
and
Mr. Justice Ognall
No. 2723/B/85
MR. C. STOPPA appeared on behalf of the Appellant.
MR. J. DAVIES appeared on behalf of the Crown.
Mark Edward Wilier is 19 years of age. He is of excellent character. He appeals against his conviction for reckless driving.
What happened to bring him to conviction was that at about half past nine in the evening of 24th April 1984 he and two school friends, Martin and Richard Jordan, were driving around the town of Hemel Hempstead in the appellant's Vauxhall Cavalier car. They heard a broadcast on the car's, what is known as, Citizen Band radio. From what they heard, the appellant was persuaded to drive to a shopping precinct at Leverstock Green. There they expected to meet another enthusiast of Citizen Band radio. At one stage of the journey the appellant had to drive up a very narrow turning off a road called Green Lane in order to keep his assignment with the other enthusiast mentioned. As he made his way up what is called Leaside, which is, as we see from the photographs, an alleyway, he was suddenly confronted with a gang of shouting and bawling youths, twenty to thirty strong. He heard one of them shouting: "I'll kill you Wilier" and "I'll kill you Jordan". He stopped and tried to turn the car round. These youths surrounded him. They banged on the car. A youth called Smallpiece opened the rear door of the car and dived upon Richard Jordan who was sitting in the back of it. Martin Jordan, his brother, got out of the front seat to help. The appellant realised that the only conceivable way he could somehow escape from this formidable gang of youths, who were obviously bent upon doing further violence, was to mount the pavement on the righthand side of Leaside and on the pavement to drive through a small gap into the front of the shopping precinct. That he did quite slowly - it was accepted, at about 10 m.p.h.
Having gained the security, if that was what it could be called, of the front of the shopping precinct and moved somewhere in the vicinity of a car park which was there, he realised that he had lost one of his companions. So he turned the car round and drove very slowly, at 5 m.p.h., back towards the gap and through it. He had to make a couple of turns in his search for his missing companion. All this time Smallpiece was in the back of the car fighting with Richard Jordan. With that going on the appellant drove to the local police station and reported the matter. For his pains he was prosecuted - a very surprising turn of events indeed.
He was charged with reckless driving. Very properly, so it seems to us, he chose trial by jury. He appeared at the Crown Court at St. Albans on 16th April 1985. The trial was presided over by Mr. Curwen, an assistant recorder. During the course of the trial an argument developed between the assistant recorder and counsel over the question as to whether or not the defence of necessity was available to the appellant. The assistant recorder ruled that it was not. The submissions were made very carefully, and some authorities were referred to. We do not see the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- R v Conway
-
Attorney General's Reference (No. 2 of 2004); R v Quayle; R v Wales; R v Taylor; R v Kenny
... ... R v Shayler [ 2001 ] EWCA Crim 1977 ;[ 2001 ] 1 WLR 2206 , CA; [ 2002 ] UKHL 11 ; [ 2003 ] 1 AC 247 ;[ 2002 ] 2 WLR 754 ;[ 2002 ] 2 All ER 477 , HL(E) R v Wang [ 2005 ] UKHL 9 ;[ 2005 ] 1 WLR 661 ;[ 2005 ] 1 AllER 782 , HL(E) R v Willer ( 1986 ) 83 CrApp R 225 ,C A RvZ [ 2005 ] UKHL 22 ;[ 2005 ] 2 AC 467 ;[ 2005 ] 2 WLR 709 ; sub nom R v Hasan [ 2005 ] 4 All ER 685 , HL(E) Southwark London Borough Council v Williams [ 1971 ]C h 734 ;[ 1971 ] 2 WLR 467 ; [ 1971 ] 2 All ER 175 ,C A Venables v News Group Newspapers Ltd [ ... ...
-
Re A (Children) (Conjoined Twins: Surgical Separation)
...rely on a defence of necessity or duress of circumstances. Thirty years later, this potential line of defence first saw the light of day in R v Willer (1986) 83 Cr App R 225. The defendant had been convicted of reckless driving (for which he was given an absolute discharge, although his li......
-
R v Martin (Colin)
...is available in cases of reckless driving is established by Conway itself and indeed by an earlier decision of the Court in Wilier (1986) 83 Cr. App. R. 225. Conway is authority also for the proposition that the scope of the defence is no wider for reckless driving than for other serious o......
-
Court of Appeal
...it, "the necessity, if any, was todrive, not to drive recklessly." The court added a word of cautionas to the report of R. v. Willer (1986) 83 Cr.App.R. 225, whichstates that "the judge erred in ruling that the defence of necessitywas not available to the defendant." In the present case, th......
-
Recent Judicial Decisions
...murder and some forms oftreason. Pommell was found lying in bed with a loaded gun inhis right hand.The first case was Willer (1986) 83 Cr App R225, CA;(1986) The Times, 10 March (reckless driving), where theaccused drove hiscaron to the pavement and into (and back outof) a shopping precinct......
-
Court of Appeal
...the defence was available in cases of reckless driving, theCourt noted, was established by R. v. Conway (above) and R. v.Willer[1986]83 Cr.App.R. 225, Conway was also authority forthe proposition that the scope of the defence was no wider forreckless driving than for other serious offences.......
-
Necessity as a Defence to Murder: An Anglo-Canadian Perspective
...should be excused for those acts whichare done through unavoidable force and compulsion’.41 See, e.g., the trio of cases of RvWiller (1986) 83 Cr App R 225; RvConway [1989] QB290 and RvMartin [1989] 1 All ER 652.42 I. Kugler, ‘Necessity as a Justication in Re A (Children)’ (2004) 68 JCL 44......