The Test for ‘Substantial Injustice’ After Jogee and Johnson: R v Towers and Another [2019] EWCA 198 (Crim)
| Author | Zach Leggett |
| DOI | 10.1177/0022018319878905 |
| Published date | 01 October 2019 |
| Date | 01 October 2019 |
| Subject Matter | Case Notes |
Case Note
The Test for ‘Substantial Injustice’
After Jogee and Johnson
R v Towers and Another [2019]
EWCA 198 (Crim)
Keywords
Substantial injustice, inference, joint enterprise, secondary participation
On the evening of 19 May 2007, Dean Curtis (19) and the two appellants, Jordan Towers (16) and
Anthony Hawkes (17) were involved in two separate incidents. The first involved the murder of Kevin
Johnson who was stabbed by either Hawkes or Curtis. The attack took place in Sunderland when
Mr Johnson heard a disturbance outside his home that evening. When he went outside, he was confronted
by Curtis, Hawkes and Towers who enticed him over the road and then surrounded him. Johnson was
struck several times by Curtis and Hawkes and during this confrontation four stab wounds were inflicted
upon the victim. Three of the wounds were minor but the final wound ruptured the victim’s heart, killing
him. As Curtis and Hawkes were attackingMr Johnson, Towers stood further back. He admitted to police
that he had swung punchesat Mr Johnson and then threw a paving slabat his legs, however, all of the blows
and the paving slab missed the intended target. Towers later told police that he had been unaware that
Johnson had been stabbed until he saw the blood on his clothing. The three youths then left the scene and
they were heard by witnesses arguing about the incident, clearly unhappy with what had transpired.
The second incident occurred later that evening. Mr Thompson was walking home when he was
approached by Towers who asked for a cigarette. The other two then joined him and one of the youths
recognised Thompson. At this stage, Curtis and Hawkes seemed to act aggressively, seeking a fight with
Thompson. Hawkes then stepped towards Thompson and stabbed him in the chest. Thompson then fled
the scene and later attended hospital for a non-fatal wound which required two stitches.
Curtis, Towers and Hawkes were convicted of the murder of Mr Johnson and with wounding with
intent in relation to Mr Thompson, contrary to s 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. At trial,
Towers chose not to give evidence. Curtis and Hawkes did give evidence and blamed each other for the
stabbing of Johnson, but both exculpated Towers. All three youths were armed that night with Towers
carrying a knife, Curtis wielding a screwdriver and Hawkes carrying a Stanley knife. In police interview,
Towers admitted to having the knife but claimed that it was for show, to intimidate, but he had no
intention of ever using it. The knife was discarded later that evening and Towers led the police to where
he had left it, and it was excluded as a murder weapon. During their evidence, Curtis and Hawkes stated
that they were unaware that Towers was carrying a knife.
The trial judge directed the jury that, in relation to Towers, that if they concluded that he did not
deliver the fatal wound to Johnson, that t hey should ask whether they were sure that h e joined in
unlawfully on the attack of the victim. If so, they would then consider whether he was aware that the
perpetrator of his killing possessed a knife. Next they must consider whether they were sure that the
defendant shared the perpetrator’s intention either to kill or cause serious bodily harm to the victim. If
yes, he would be guilty of murder, otherwise they must consider whether they were sure that the
defendant realised that the perpetrator may use the knife with an intention to kill or cause serious bodily
The Journal of Criminal Law
2019, Vol. 83(5) 420–424
ªThe Author(s) 2019
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0022018319878905
journals.sagepub.com/home/clj
To continue reading
Request your trial