R v Williams; R v Davis
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 18 October 1991 |
| Date | 18 October 1991 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
Court of Appeal
Before Lord Justice Stuart-Smith, Mr Justice Waterhouse and Mr Justice Morland
Criminal evidence - manslaughter - victim's reaction - foreseeability
Where a defendant was charged with manslaughter, the victim having died in flight from a threat and there was a real issue as to causation, the judge had to direct the jury to consider whether it was foreseeable that some harm was likely to result from the threat and whether the victim's reaction was within the range of responses which might be expected from a victim in his situation.
The Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) so held in quashing the convictions at Bristol Crown Court (Sir Kenneth Jones, QC, sitting as a deputy High Court judge and a jury) on November 21, 1990 of Barry Anthony Williams and Frank O'Neill Davis for the manslaughter of John Shephard and for robbery.
Mr Paul Grumbar, assigned by the Registrar of Criminal Appeals, for Williams; Mr John Perry, QC and Mr Edmond Alexander, assigned by the Registrar of Criminal Appeals, for Davis; Miss Rosina Hare, QC and Mr Michael Roach for the Crown.
LORD JUSTICE STUART-SMITH said the dead man was hitch-hiking to a free festival at Glastonbury when he was picked up a car driven by Williams in which David and a co-defendant Bobat, acquitted at trial, were passengers. After some five miles, while the car was travelling at about 30 miles per hour, the deceased had jumped from the car and died from head injuries.
The key issue was whether anything had happened in the car to make him jump. None of three defendants had given evidence at trial but they had made statements to the police.
Williams had said he asked Shephard for £5 petrol money which had been paid. He said Davis had then tried to grab the rest of Shephard's money from his wallet and almost at once Shephard had jumped from the car.
Davis had blamed Williams and said that he threatened Shephard if he did not hand over the £5.
It was impossible to escape the conclusion that despite a very firm warning from the judge, the jury must have used the incriminating statement of Davis against Williams, whose conviction for robbery and manslaughter had to be quashed.
In Davis's case, the judge had directed the jury on the basis of DPP v DaleyUNK ((1979) 69 Cr App R 39) that the prosecution had to establish "… firstly, that the victim, immediately before he sustained the injuries, was in fear of being hurt physically; secondly, that his fear was such that it caused him to try to escape; thirdly, that whilst he was trying to escape and because he was trying to escape he met his death; fourthly, that his fear of being hurt there and then was reasonable and was caused by the conduct of the accused man; fifthly that the accused's conduct, which caused the fear, was unlawful and, finally...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dean Girdler v The Crown
...unlawful and violent acts are said to have caused another person to suffer injuries in the course of escaping from those acts, see R v Williams (1992) 95 Cr App R 1. 39 On the other hand, in the Empress Car case (referred to in paragraph 33 above) which involved an offence of strict respons......
-
R v Robinson (Raymond)
...or to cast doubt on the reliability of confessions by the defendant ( R v Raghip and others (CA judgment 5 December 1991), and R v Ward 95 Cr App R 1). 19 In Mackenney and Pinfold 76 Cr App R 271, it was held that a psychologist with no medical qualifications could not be called to give evi......
-
R v Valodia Tarasov and Another
... ... 9 See further R v Williams & Anor (1992) 95 Cr App R 1 at page 8: "The jury should consider two questions: first, whether it was reasonably foreseeable that ... ...
-
R v Lewis (Robert Walter)
...of the issue whether the death of the deceased was “caused” by the appellant. It is an issue which arose in R v Williams and Davis [1992] 1 WLR 380, (1992) 95 Cr App R 1. The deceased had been picked up when hitch-hiking by three men in a car. After a journey of some five miles he jumped ou......
-
Domestic Abuse, Suicide and Liability for Manslaughter: In Pursuit of Justice for Victims
...allows for analogiesto be drawn between rules developed in decided cases and novel situations that may require further117. R v Williams [1992] 1 WLR 380.118. Munro and Shah (n 16) at 268.119. Aitken and Munro (n 7); S. Walby, The Cost of Domestic Violence Women and Equality Unit (London 200......
-
Religious practice as a "thin skull" in the context of civil liability.
...Mitigation?" (2007) 20:2 Can JL & Jur 399 at 412. (98) Ibid at 400, 412. (99) Ibid at 400. (100) See e.g., R v Williams and Davis, [1992] 2 All ER 183, 95 Cr App R 1; R v Pitts (1842), 174 ER 509, Car & M 284; R v Valade (1915), 26 CCC 233, 22 R de Jur 524 (101) Christine Santerre, ......
-
Kennedy and Unlawful Act Manslaughter: An Unorthodox Application of the Doctrine of Causation
...actus reus of violent offence by reactingforeseeably to an attacker. See Rv Roberts (1971) 56 Cr App R 95 and Rv Williamsand Davis (1992) 95 Cr App R 1, in which hitchhikers in both cases jumped out oftheir attackers’ cars after being unlawfully propositioned. In Roberts the victim’sreactio......
-
Reconstructing unlawful and dangerous act manslaughter
...chain of causation was not broken by the victim’s conduct, because it was held to have been reasonably foreseeable. Cf. Rv Williams [1992] 2 All ER 183 (CA).44. Cf. Horder (n 15) at 143: ‘killing by intentionally attacking V’s physical integrity is ...not to make an implicit claim thatattac......