Recent Judicial Decisions
| Published date | 01 January 1991 |
| Date | 01 January 1991 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/0032258X9106400117 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
RECENT JUDICIAL DECISIONS
BE
PREPARED
Rv.Jones
[1990] 1
WLR
1057. Court
of
Appeal
Jones,amarried man, lived with a woman, Lynn, in Australia during 1986.
When
they bothreturned to England she startedarelationship with another
man, though she still saw Jones, the accused, to whom she was said to be
very attached.
Over
aperiod
of
three days Jones bought three shotguns.
He shortened the barrel of one
of
them and test-fired it. He told a fellow
workmate that he would be away on January 26,1988. He followed this up
with a phone call to Lynn in which he appeared to be distressed. Next day
he apologized to her,
but
she refused his suggestion that they take up their
former relationship again. He then told his wife he was going to work in
Spain. On the 26th he apparently went to workas normal but he told his wife
he would let her know by telephone if he was going to Spain that evening.
That
morning the man, with whom
Jones'
former lover had formed
arelationship, was delivering his daughter, as usual, at school when Jones
appeared and
jumped
into the rear
of
his car. The two men had never
met
and Jones introduced himself. Jones asked the man to drive on and when
they stopped at the verge, gave him a letter from Lynn. Whilst this was
beingread he tookthe sawn-offshotgun,which was loaded,from a holdall.
Therewas a struggle
but
the gun was thrown
out
of
the window by the man
who was then pulled backwards by a cord round his neck. Nevertheless
he managed to escapeand telephoned for the police. Jonesdrove
off
in the
car
and was laterfound and arrested as he was
'jogging'
awayfrom the car.
The
bag he had had with him contained ahatchet, some cartridges and a
length
of
cord. He had also thrown away asharp kitchen knife. In his car,
whichwas parkednearthe school, were amounts
of
money,someof which
were in Spanish currency. He made no comment.
He was charged with attempted murder and at his trial it was
submitted to the Judge that the charge should be withdrawn from the
jury
on the legal ground that the acts he had committed were not proximate
enough to constitute an attempt. They were too remote, it was argued,
becausethere were three acts still to be donebefore acrimewas committed;
remove the safety catch on the gun,
put
afinger on the trigger
and
pull it.
The
trial Judge, after discussion
of
the provisions
of
s.1
of
the Criminal
Attempts Act 1981, ruled against that argument and the trial continued.
After the accused had given evidence the
jury
returned averdict
of
attempted murder. The appeal was based upon the interpretation
of
the
provisions
of
the Criminal Attempts Act by the trial Judge.
Section 1(1)
of
that Act uses
the
phrase '..an act which is more than
merelypreparatoryto the commission
of
the offence..' Section 4(1)
ofthe
Act
makes the point that whether the act complained
of
fell within the
definition in s.1(1) was a 'question
of
fact', that is to say amatter for the
jury.
January 1990 83
To continue reading
Request your trial