Recent Judicial Decisions
| Author | J. C. Wood |
| Published date | 01 August 1969 |
| Date | 01 August 1969 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/0032258X6904200805 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
PROFESSOR
J.
C.
WOOD,LL.
M.
The University
of
Sheffield
TWO OFFENCES OR ONE
R. v. Harris
[1969]
2 All E.R. 599 Court
of
Appeal
Harris was convicted of buggery and indecent assault. He was
sentenced to seven years' imprisonment for the buggery and five
years' concurrent for the assault. He appealed against the conviction
and sentence. Edmund Davies, L.J., in the Court of Appeal dealt
with an important issue. The two offencesrelated to the same set of
events. The Judge said:
It
does not seem to this Court right or desirable that one and the same incident
should be' made the subject-matter of distinct charges, so that hereafter it may
appear to those not familiar with the circumstances that two entirely separate
offences were committed . Were this permitted generally, a single offence could
frequently give rise to a multiplicity of charges and great unfairness could
ensue. .
The indecent assault was held to have merged in the buggery and
conviction for that assault was quashed.
Note
Although this is a brief "note" in the reports it is an exceptionally important
and difficult point that is raised. In many areas of crime, offences against the
person and road traffic offences are good examples, a series of facts can give rise
to a multiplicity of charges. Going at 40
m.p
.h. through traffic lights at red is the
type of situation that often occurs. How many of the possible charges arise out
of the "same incident"? Which overlap? Which can stand separately ? Clearly
dangerous and careless driving stand as alternatives, failing to conform may be
said to
merge-practice
here seems to differ. What of speeding in a built-up
area?
It
is obviously right that Harris has emphasized the unfairness: a great
deal of thought will be often needed before it can be always satisfactorily applied .
UNDER ARREST
Alderson v. Booth
[1969]
2 W.L.R. 1252 Divisional Court
Booth was involved in a road accident. A constable in uniform
arrived at the scene and suspecting alcohol began the Road Safety
Act 1967 procedure. The breath test proved to be positive.
Thereupon the constable said,
"I
shall have to ask you to come to
the police station for further tests". Booth then accompanied the
constable to a police station where further tests were carried out.
The blood sample showed the proportion of 203
mg.jlOO
mi.-well
in excess
of
the prescribed limit.
Before the magistrates it was argued that Booth had not been
arrested as required by the Act.
It
was said that he went to the police
August 1969 352
To continue reading
Request your trial