R V Roberts (Kenneth Joseph)

{\rtf1 \ansi
{\colortbl;
\red0\green0\blue0;
\red255\green255\blue255;
}
{\fonttbl {
\f0 Arial;}{
\f1 Symbol;}{
\f2 Times New Roman;}{
\f3 georgia;}{
\f4 sans-serif;}{
\f5 serif;}{
\f6 Courier New;}{
\f7 Source Sans Pro;}
}
{\*\generator Apache XML Graphics RTF Library;}
\fet0 \ftnbj
{\*\listtable
{\list\listtemplateid-
1066296408\listsimple{\listlevel\leveljc\levelfollow0\levelspace0\levelindent400{\l
eveltext\'01\u160\'3f}{\levelnumbers}}{\listname ;}\listid551864094}
}
{\*\listoverridetable
{\*\listoverride{\listid551864094\listoverridecount0\ls1}}
}
\paperw12240 \paperh15840 \margt1080 \margb1080 \margl1080 \margr1080
\headery720 \footery720 \itap0 \cols1
\sectd {\header {
{\trowd \ltrrow \trleft0
\clpadb60 \clpadfb3 \clpadl400 \clpadfl3 \clbrdrt \clbrdrb \brdrcf17 \brdrw20
\brdrs \clbrdrl \trql \clvertalb \clwWidth9380 \cellx9380
\clpadb60 \clpadfb3 \clpadl400 \clpadfl3 \clbrdrt \clbrdrb \brdrcf17 \brdrw20
\brdrs \clbrdrr \trql \clwWidth700 \cellx10080
\intbl
{\b0 \cf1 \f0 \ri0 \i0 \ql \fs18 \li0
{\b0 \cf1 \f0 \ul0 \strike0 \i0 \fs18
}
{\b1 \cf18 \f0 \i0 \fs18
{\b1 \cf18 \f0 \ul0 \strike0 \i0 \fs18 \sa0 \sb0
R. v Roberts (Kenneth Joseph), (1972) 56 Cr. App. R. 95 (1971)
}
}
}
}\b0 \cf1 \f0 \ri0 \ul0 \strike0 \i0 \ql \fs18 \li0 \sa0 \sb0 \intbl \cell \intbl
{\qr \b0 \cf1 \f0 \ri0 \i0 \fs18 \li0
}\qr \b0 \cf1 \f0 \ri0 \i0 \fs18 \li0 \intbl \cell \row }
{\trowd \lastrow \trleft0
\clbrdrb \clbrdrl \trql \clwWidth10080 \cellx10080
\intbl
{\b0 \cf1 \f0 \ri0 \i0 \ql \fs18 \li0
}\b0 \cf1 \f0 \ri0 \i0 \ql \fs18 \li0 \intbl \cell \row }}\par }{\footer {
\clpadl60 \clpadfl3 \clbrdrt \brdrcf17 \brdrw20 \brdrs \clbrdrb \clbrdrl \trql
\clvertalb \clwWidth9300 \cellx9300
\clpadl60 \clpadfl3 \clbrdrt \brdrcf17 \brdrw20 \brdrs \clbrdrb \clbrdrr \trql
\clwWidth700 \cellx10000
\intbl
{\b0 \cf17 \f0 \ri0 \i0 \ql \fs20 \li0
\u169\'3f 2019 Thomson Reuters.
}
}\b0 \cf17 \f0 \ri0 \ul0 \strike0 \i0 \ql \fs20 \li0 \sa0 \sb0 \intbl \cell \intbl
{\qr \b0 \cf17 \f0 \ri0 \i0 \fs20 \li0
{\b0 \i0 \ul0 \fs20 \f0 \chpgn }
}\qr \b0 \cf17 \f0 \ri0 \ul0 \strike0 \i0 \fs20 \li0 \intbl \cell \row }}\par }
{\b0 \cf1 \f5 \ri0 \i0 \qj \fs20 \li0 \par}\sect\sbknone\pgncont\cols1{\ids0
{\b0 \cf1 \f5 \i0 \fs20
}
{\b0 \cf24 \f5 \ri0 \i0 \qj \fs20 \li0
{\b0 \cf24 \f5 \ri0 \i0 \qj \fs20 \li0
For educational use only
\par
}
}
{\b0 \cf24 \f5 \ri0 \i0 \qj \fs20 \li0
{\b0 \cf24 \f5 \ri0 \i0 \qj \fs20 \li0
{\b1 \cf19 \f5 \ri0 \i0 \ql \fs36 \li0
}
{\b1 \cf25 \f5 \i1 \fs36
*95
}
}
R. v Kenneth Joseph Roberts
\par
}
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
}
}
{\b0 \cf1 \f5 \ri0 \i0 \qj \fs20 \li0
{\b0 \cf1 \f5 \ri0 \i0 \ql \fs20 \li0
{\b0 \cf1 \f5 \ri0 \i0 \ql \fs20 \li0
{\b0 \cf1 \f5 \ri0 \i0 \ql \fs20 \li0 {
\clcbpat2 \clbrdrt \clbrdrb \clbrdrl \trql \clvertalc \clwWidth600 \cellx600
\clcbpat2 \clbrdrt \clbrdrb \clbrdrr \trql \clvertalc \clwWidth9480 \cellx10080
\intbl
{\ri0 \li0
{\b0 \cf1 \f5 \ri0 \i0 \ql \fs20 \li0
{\*\shppict {\pict \pngblip \picw40 \pich40 \picwgoal560 \pichgoal560
89504e470d0a1a0a0000000d49484452000000280000002808060000008cfeb86d00000019744558745
36f6674776172650041646f626520496d616765526561647971c9653c000002da4944415478da62fcff
ff3fc360064c0c831c8c3a9052c0822ec0c8c84894c6f2853ac2402a00881d81580f88158198072afd0
588ef03f12520de0fc41b3ae3afbc25c65cf43cc1882140c0814087811c5309c4c140cc4a6440fc06e2
b540dc0e74e8259a3810e8305e20d505c4e9206564c618c8b299405c0674e867aa3910e8386d503401b
10a9592d61d50f2003af22a2107321191d62c80d4312a3a8e016ad631a8d9e4e76268c8ed04623e1a64
5090993ba17690ee40689adb4023c7213b7203d42ee28a1924d0458d68cdf65aca202ba207663f7b778
361d296506cd10db22b93e810841625e9943a4e59c21cee3810d87b713a2ea5e9503b898ee24a0a8a12
3870d44d81b341a177edf17e5c4a19a176127620b48608a6d47132223a0c2a921628a1f79f016fcb291
86a37c1100c20a186c01d7a3a44871e0cb042ed26e840474a1d27c6afcca025e7444ae8e1b41b9b03f5
2875a0834e1230513192127a38edc6e640454a1c27c02dc960a0e4434ee861b51b9b03792871a0bd4e2
20313231339a187d56e1662757a1a15022d4f82f34fdd5ec3b0e14433c3bfffff10a673083198aa0491
1b7a4457755fb029dc7eae9fe1e0957970be996a0843a45d3703331322c3db6ac533b030b3931b7a58e
dc6e6c0fbb874a33b5257de8d21d1791a031b0b2703271b2f83b95a18a5a1779f982806b57875f13912
92d620d10d2a8c53dde6323c78758e81838d8792d083d94dd0812093a3f19982ee4859115d30a642dad
b4f4c146f80f6211808391239ba49ac3570f55b36107420b4f7b5961813b1399282d05b8bade787ab35
d30eede090e4480a42ef3fd44ee29a5bd0aee14c624d87399282d09b89ab3b8aafa02e036217625bd5b
08c43660faf8ce43e09b4df0a6afe7ca2619fe413b4fbf999ac5e1db4dfea4e234782cc74c7d63726a9
5f0c34e00490b2824605b500c82c2ba8d9948f6e417d6904c43388cddd78722bc80c23422137fc068f0
6cdf0db6003a343c0c3de8100010600af8338415eaecdce0000000049454e44ae426082}}
\par
}
}\b0 \cf1 \f5 \ri0 \i0 \ql \li0 \fs20 \intbl \cell \intbl
{\ri0 \li0
{\b0 \cf1 \f5 \ri0 \i0 \ql \fs20 \li0
{\b1 \cf26 \f5 \i0 \fs20
Positive/Neutral Judicial Consideration
\par
}
}
}
}\b1 \cf26 \f5 \ri0 \ul0 \strike0 \i0 \ql \li0 \fs20 \sa0 \sb0 \intbl \cell
\row }}\par
}
}
{\b0 \cf1 \f5 \ri0 \i0 \ql \fs20 \li0
{\b1 \cf1 \f5 \i0 \fs20
Court
\par
}
}
{\b0 \cf1 \f5 \ri0 \i0 \ql \fs20 \li0
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
\par
}
}
}
{\b0 \cf1 \f5 \ri0 \i0 \ql \fs20 \li0
\u160\'3f
\par
}
}
{\b0 \cf1 \f5 \ri0 \i0 \ql \fs20 \li0
{\b1 \cf1 \f5 \i0 \fs20
Judgment Date
\par
}
}
{\b0 \cf1 \f5 \ri0 \i0 \ql \fs20 \li0
21 October 1971
\par
}
}
}
{\b0 \cf1 \f5 \ri0 \i0 \ql \fs20 \li0
\u160\'3f
\par
}
}
{\b0 \cf1 \f5 \ri0 \i0 \ql \fs20 \li0
{\b1 \cf1 \f5 \i0 \fs20
Report Citation
\par
}
}
{\b0 \cf1 \f5 \ri0 \i0 \ql \fs20 \li0
{\b0 \cf1 \f5 \ri0 \i0 \ql \fs20 \li0
(1972) 56 Cr. App. R. 95
\par
}
}
}
}
{\b0 \cf1 \f5 \ri0 \i0 \ql \fs20 \li0
\u160\'3f
\par
}
}
}
{\b0 \cf1 \f5 \i0 \fs20
}
{\b0 \cf1 \f5 \ri0 \i0 \qj \fs20 \li0
{\b0 \cf1 \f5 \ri0 \i0 \qj \fs20 \li0
{\b0 \cf5 \f5 \i0 \fs20
}
{\b0 \qc \cf1 \f5 \ri0 \i0 \fs20 \li0
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
\par
}
}
{\b0 \qc \cf1 \f5 \ri0 \i0 \fs20 \li0
Lord Justice Stephenson , Mr. Justice Thompson and Mr. Justice Bridge
\par
}
}
{\b0 \qc \cf1 \f5 \ri0 \i0 \fs20 \li0
1971 Oct. 21
\par
}
}
}
{\b0 \cf1 \f5 \ri0 \i0 \qj \fs20 \li0
{\b0 \cf1 \f5 \i1 \fs20
Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm\u8212\'3fCar Driven by
Appellant\u8212\'3fYoung Girl as Passenger\u8212\'3fAssault and Threats by
Appellant\u8212\'3fJump by Girl from Moving Car\u8212\'3fSumming-
up\u8212\'3fForeseeability of Conduct of Victim.
\par
}
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
{\b0 \cf1 \f5 \ri0 \i0 \qj \fs20 \li0
}
{\b0 \cf1 \f5 \ri0 \i0 \qj \fs20 \li0
{\b0 \cf1 \f5 \ri0 \i0 \qj \fs20 \li0
A young girl who was a passenger in the appellant\rquote s car injured herself by
jumping out of the car while it was in motion. She ran, shouting for help, to a
house and was seen to be in a very distressed condition. Her explanation was that
she had been assaulted and threatened by the appellant. The judge directed the jury
that, if they felt sure that they ought to accept the evidence of the girl on what
induced her to jump out of the car, they should convict of assault occasioning
actual bodily harm.
\par
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
{\b0 \cf1 \f5 \ri0 \i0 \qj \fs20 \li0
{\b0 \cf1 \f5 \ri0 \i0 \qj \fs20 \li0
Held, that the proper test being not whether the appellant actually foresaw the
conduct of the victim which resulted in the actual bodily harm, but whether that
conduct could have reasonably been foreseen as the consequence of what he was
saying or doing, the summing-up was not open to objection and the conviction must
be affirmed.
\par
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
{\b0 \cf1 \f5 \ri0 \i0 \qj \fs20 \li0
{\b0 \cf1 \f5 \ri0 \i0 \qj \fs20 \li0
}
{\b0 \cf1 \f5 \i1 \fs20
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK
"http://uk.westlaw.com/Document/I9EB586A0E57211DAB242AFEA6182DD7E/View/FullText.htm
l?
originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&vr=3.0&rs=PLUK1.0&contextDa
ta=(sc.DocLink)" }{\fldrslt
Beech (1912) 7 Cr.App.R. 197 followed
}}}
}
.
\par
}
}
\u160\'3f
}
{\b1 \cf25 \f5 \i1 \fs20
*96
}
}
\par
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
{\b0 \cf1 \f5 \ri0 \i0 \qj \fs20 \li0
Appeal against conviction.
\par
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
{\b0 \cf1 \f5 \ri0 \i0 \qj \fs20 \li0
The appellant was convicted on June 23, 1971, at Cheshire Quarter Sessions of
assault occasioning actual bodily harm and was fined \u163\'3f50 by the Chairman
(His Honour Judge David, Q.C.).
\par
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
{\b0 \cf1 \f5 \ri0 \i0 \qj \fs20 \li0
The girl\rquote s story was that on the evening of May 1 she went to a base camp
for troops in Lancashire, being at that time engaged to be married to an American
serviceman who had gone to Vietnam. She was friendly with many of the people at
that base, and from there she went on to a party where she met the appellant, for
the first time. She left that party at about 3 a.m., having agreed to travel with
the appellant in his car to what he said was another party in Warrington. After
they had driven out of Warrington in the direction of Liverpool, she asked the
appellant where the party was, and he said that they were going to Runcorn. They
took a curious route to Runcorn, and eventually, she said, they stopped on what
seemed like a big cindertrack. The time by then was apparently about 4 a.m. Then,
she said, \u8220\'3fHe just jumped on me. He put his hands up my clothes and tried
to take my tights off. I started to fight him off, but the door of the car was
locked and I could not find the catch. Suddenly he grabbed me and then he drove off
and I started to cry and asked him to take me home. He told me to take my clothes
off and, if I did not take my clothes off, he would let me walk home, so I asked
him to let me do that. He said, if he did, he would beat me up before he let me go.
He said that he had done this before and had got away with it and he started to
pull my coat off. He was using foul language.\u8221\'3f And then she said that she
told him, \u8220\'3fI am not like this,\u8221\'3f and he said something like,
\u8220\'3fYou are all like that.\u8221\'3f Then he drove on.
\u8220\'3fAgain,\u8221\'3f said the girl, \u8220\'3fhe tried to get my coat off, so
I got hold of my handbag and I jumped out of the car. When I opened the door he
said something and revved the car up and I jumped out. The next thing I remember he
was backing towards me and so I ran to the nearest house. He backed and shouted and
then he drove off,\u8221\'3f and then she remembered being in the lady\rquote s
house. She said she was taken to hospital, where she was treated for some
}
}
{\b1 \cf25 \f5 \i1 \fs20
*97
}
}
concussion and for some grazing, and was detained in hospital for three days. When
she was cross-examined, she said, \u8220\'3fI was fighting for my life to get him
off. He had hold of me while he was driving. I probably struck him when he was
trying to drag my coat off, although I did not strike him in the face. He was
travelling at about forty-five miles an hour when I jumped out of the
car.\u8221\'3f At another point in her evidence, she said that actually before she
had jumped out of the car he started to take her coat off\u8212\'3f\u8220\'3fThat
was the last straw. I opened the door and jumped.\u8221\'3f A woman was called from
the house which she knocked up, to describe her distressed condition. The jury was
faced with the fact, and it was not disputed when it came to the evidence of the
appellant, that the complainant, by no means an inexperienced girl of twenty-one
years of age, had for some reason or other jumped out of a moving car, and went
running, shouting for help, to a house, in a very distressed condition.
\par
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
{\b0 \cf1 \f5 \ri0 \i0 \qj \fs20 \li0
The appellant, when seen by the police, and apparently seen in connection with a
possible charge far more serious than that for which he appeared at
sessions\u8212\'3fa charge of rape, or attempted rape\u8212\'3ftold them:
\u8220\'3fIt is not like you say, all of it. She was game and led me on. Then she
changed her mind and stopped. I was angry, but so would you be. I drove off. When
she jumped out I was not going very fast.\u8221\'3f When he came to give his
evidence, his evidence was as consistent with what he said to the police as was the
evidence of the complaining girl with what she said to the police. He described how
the girl had made advances to him\u8212\'3fand how she had moved his hand away, and
so on, and how they had a bit of an argument about her first of all making advances
to him and then changing her mind, and he said: \u8220\'3fI called her a cow. She
hit me and I got hold of her arms and she was shouting and bawling. I drove along
about two miles and suddenly she opened the door and flew out. I was going to take
her home. I stopped the car about fifteen yards further on. I was going very slowly
because of the argument\u8221\'3f\u8212\'3fthat means, I think, when she flew out
of the car\u8212\'3f\u8220\'3fIf it was more than twenty, it was very little more.
I reversed back and I dropped the window and said, \u8216\'3fdon\rquote t be
daft.\u8217\'3f\u8221\'3f
\par
}
}
\u160\'3f
}
{\b1 \cf25 \f5 \i1 \fs20
*98
}
}
\par
}
{\b0 \cf1 \f5 \ri0 \i0 \qj \fs20 \li0
There was a certain amount of evidence that the complainant had been drinking, and
she freely admitted that she had in the car with her a tumbler, which she said
contained wine, and he said contained gin; and, according to the appellant, she had
been behaving in a very familiar manner with other officers and persons at the
party to which they had been before they got into the car. She denied that she had
been drinking, and indeed a woman doctor who examined her said that she was not
drunk\u8212\'3fand, when he was asked about it, the appellant himself said that she
was not drunk, although she had a certain amount to drink, but she was just
\u8220\'3fmerry.\u8221\'3f
\par
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
{\b0 \cf1 \f5 \ri0 \i0 \qj \fs20 \li0
}
{\b0 \cf1 \f5 \i1 \fs20
A. Carus
}
}
, for the appellant. The summing-up of the judge on what the prosecution were
required to prove was inadequate. He should have told the jury that, before they
could convict, they must be satisfied that it was the conduct of the appellant
which caused the girl\rquote s injuries and that they must negative the possibility
of her having fallen out by accident, or because she was the worse for drink, or
because she chose to do something which was, in the circumstances, completely
foolish. Further, he should have told the jury that the appellant would be liable
for her injuries only if he foresaw that as a result of his touching her she was
likely to jump out of the car.
}
[He referred to
}
{\b0 \cf1 \f5 \i1 \fs20
Martin (1881) 8 Q.B.D. 54
}
}
;
}
{\b0 \cf1 \f5 \i1 \fs20
Chapin (1910) 74 J.P. 71
}
}
;
}
{\b0 \cf1 \f5 \i1 \fs20
Halliday (1889) 61 L.J. 701
}
}
;
}
{\b0 \cf1 \f5 \i1 \fs20
l?
Beech (1912) 7 Cr.App.R. 197
}}}
}
;
}
{\b0 \cf1 \f5 \i1 \fs20
"http://uk.westlaw.com/Document/I8C8B7E90E43611DA8FC2A0F0355337E9/View/FullText.htm
l?
Lewis [1970] Crim.L.R. 647
}}}
}
.]
\par
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
{\b0 \cf1 \f5 \ri0 \i0 \qj \fs20 \li0
}
{\b0 \cf1 \f5 \i1 \fs20
D. A. Phillips
}
}
, for the Crown. Of the cases cited in argument,
}
{\b0 \cf1 \f5 \i1 \fs20
Beech
}
}
(
}
{\b0 \cf1 \f5 \i1 \fs20
supra
}
}
) is most probably the one most precisely in point. There it was held that the
test was, was the action of the woman in jumping from the window the natural
consequence of the prisoner\rquote s conduct? To introduce, as the argument for the
appellant suggests, the further test whether the appellant himself actually foresaw
that the girl would jump out of the car as a result of his conduct, would be in
conflict with the decided authorities and would be wrong. The judge\rquote s
summing-up followed the line established by the authorities and cannot properly be
criticised.
\par
}
}
\u160\'3f
}
{\b1 \cf25 \f5 \i1 \fs20
*99
}
}
\par
}
{\b0 \cf1 \f5 \ri0 \i0 \qj \fs20 \li0
}
{\b0 \cf1 \f5 \ri0 \i0 \qj \fs20 \li0
Stephenson L.J.:
\par
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
{\b0 \cf1 \f5 \ri0 \i0 \qj \fs20 \li0
{\b0 \cf1 \f5 \ri0 \i0 \qj \fs20 \li0
This appellant, Kenneth Joseph Roberts, was convicted on June 23, 1971, at Cheshire
Quarter Sessions by a jury of an assault occasioning actual bodily harm, and he was
fined \u163\'3f50 by the Chairman. He was tried on an indictment alleging, first of
all, that he indecently assaulted a young woman of twenty-one; he was acquitted on
that charge, but convicted of assault occasioning actual bodily harm to her. He
appeals to this Court by leave of the single judge, who pointed out that what was
involved here was really a point of law, on which no leave was necessary; and the
point of law relates to a direction given by the learned judge to the jury who
convicted him of this assault.
\par
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
{\b0 \cf1 \f5 \ri0 \i0 \qj \fs20 \li0
{\b0 \cf1 \f5 \ri0 \i0 \qj \fs20 \li0
The jury had to decide what evidence to accept from the girl herself, and from the
appellant. They accepted some police evidence, and the evidence of a witness or
witnesses who had seen the girl immediately after the alleged assault. There was no
other evidence before them.
\par
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
{\b0 \cf1 \f5 \ri0 \i0 \qj \fs20 \li0
{\b0 \cf1 \f5 \ri0 \i0 \qj \fs20 \li0
[The learned Lord Justice stated the facts set out above and continued:]
\par
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
{\b0 \cf1 \f5 \ri0 \i0 \qj \fs20 \li0
{\b0 \cf1 \f5 \ri0 \i0 \qj \fs20 \li0
In those circumstances, the jury had to make up their minds, first of all, whether
the appellant had indecently assaulted this girl; and after a direction to the jury
of which no complaint is made, or could be made, the jury acquitted him, as has
been said, on that charge.
\par
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
{\b0 \cf1 \f5 \ri0 \i0 \qj \fs20 \li0
{\b0 \cf1 \f5 \ri0 \i0 \qj \fs20 \li0
Next, they had to consider: was the appellant guilty of an assault occasioning her
actual bodily harm? Of course, for that to be established, it had to be established
that he was responsible in law and in fact for her injuries caused by leaving in a
hurry the moving car, and it is the Chairman\rquote s direction with regard to the
law on the second count which leads to this appeal. So far as the assault
occasioning actual bodily harm was concerned, said the Chairman, \u8220\'3fthe
matter arises in this way. The prosecution say, that is to say, Miss Bell says,
that driving along in the car, after the scene on the car park, the defendant, she
says, started trying to take her coat off. That act, in the context of the
conversation that had been going on, if it was against her will, was an assault.
The prosecution say that was, for her, \u8216\'3fthe
}
{\b1 \cf25 \f5 \i1 \fs20
*100
}
}
last straw\u8217\'3f.\u8221\'3f The prosecution were using the girl\rquote s
words. The Chairman continued: \u8220\'3fThat act, that assault, say the
prosecution, caused her to jump from the car. If, therefore, you find that it was
an assault, that is to say, find that the defendant did try to take her coat off
and that she was not consenting and because of that she jumped out of the car and
injured herself, then that would be an assault occasioning actual bodily harm, but
you have to be satisfied that there was an assault and that it was that assault
that caused the harm.\u8221\'3f
}
Then he gave an illustration, possibly misleading to the jury and not very helpful,
about the way in which the harm could be caused. Then later on he came back to the
second charge: \u8220\'3fThat, in point of time and space, takes us some five or
ten minutes on and about two miles down the road. At that stage Miss Bell says,
\u8216\'3fHe was telling me what he had done to other women, the effect of his
conversation was that he was going to have his way with me, and then he started to
take off my coat. That was the last straw. I opened the car door and
jumped\u8217\'3f\u8221\'3f\u8212\'3fthe evidence of the girl to which I have
already referred. He then used these words: \u8220\'3fIf that be true, then without
doubt, that is an assault and it occasioned actual bodily harm. Your verdict would
be Guilty upon that chare. His version is, \u8216\'3fWe were arguing. Of course, I
was frustrated at being stopped when I was stopped, but I had nothing really to do
with her jumping out of the car. It was merely a result of a verbal battle between
us. She suddenly opened the door and before I could do anything she had
gone.\u8217\'3f If that be right, there was no assault. Certainly you would acquit
on that charge. But, once more, remember it is for the prosecution who have brought
the charge to prove it. If you are sure that their version be right, convict, but
not otherwise.\u8221\'3f He then went in detail into the accounts of the girl and
of the man.
\par
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
{\b0 \cf1 \f5 \ri0 \i0 \qj \fs20 \li0
{\b0 \cf1 \f5 \ri0 \i0 \qj \fs20 \li0
It is quite clear that nothing was said in the court of trial about common assault.
All that was said was about indecent assault, and assault occasioning actual bodily
harm. As regards the appellant\rquote s version, and the alleged indecent assault,
what was
}
{\b1 \cf25 \f5 \i1 \fs20
*101
}
}
said was accepted by the jury, or must, at any rate, have given them enough doubt
to feel that they could not accept certain of the girl\rquote s evidence on that.
But it follows clearly, in the view of this Court, from their verdict, that they
did accept in substance the evidence of the girl, preferring it to the evidence of
the appellant. They may have been impressed\u8212\'3fit is difficult to believe
they were not impressed\u8212\'3fby the absence of any real explanation by the
appellant of how this particular young woman came to leave the car in the
circumstances which injured her, and in the condition which was attested by at
least one other witness; and they did not accept his evidence, they accepted her
evidence.
\par
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
{\b0 \cf1 \f5 \ri0 \i0 \qj \fs20 \li0
{\b0 \cf1 \f5 \ri0 \i0 \qj \fs20 \li0
It is very difficult\u8212\'3findeed impossible\u8212\'3ffor this Court to say that
they were not entitled to do so. The only question is: was there a misdirection by
the Chairman which led them to that conclusion, or compelled that conclusion on
their part?\u8212\'3fand the way in which that is put in the grounds of appeal
which Mr. Carus has pursued before us is that the Chairman was wrong in law when he
told the jury \u8220\'3fif you are satisfied that he tried to pull off her coat and
as a result she jumped out of the moving car, then your verdict is
Guilty.\u8221\'3f He failed to tell the jury that they must be satisfied that the
cause of her injuries was the action of the appellant, and not the fact that she
was under the influence of alcohol, or any other reason. Then he goes on to submit
that the learned Chairman was wrong in failing to tell the jury that they must be
satisfied that the appellant foresaw that she might jump out as a result of his
touching her, before they convicted. And there is a complaint, not really pursued
in this Court, that the judge failed to direct the jury that they might find the
appellant guilty of common assault.
\par
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
{\b0 \cf1 \f5 \ri0 \i0 \qj \fs20 \li0
{\b0 \cf1 \f5 \ri0 \i0 \qj \fs20 \li0
We have been helpfully referred to a number of reported cases, some well over a
century old, of women jumping out of windows, or jumping or throwing themselves
into a river, as a consequence of threats of violence or actual violence.
}
The most recent case is the case of
}
{\b0 \cf1 \f5 \i1 \fs20
"http://uk.westlaw.com/Document/I8C8B7E90E43611DA8FC2A0F0355337E9/View/FullText.htm
l?
Lewis [1970] Crim.L.R. 647
}}}
}
. An earlier case is that of
}
{\b0 \cf1 \f5 \i1 \fs20
l?
Beech (1912) 7 Cr.App.R. 197
}}}
}
, which was a case of a woman jumping out of a window and injuring herself,
}
{\b1 \cf25 \f5 \i1 \fs20
*102
}
}
and of a man who had friendly relations with her, whom she knew and might have had
reason to be afraid of, being prosecuted for inflicting grievous bodily harm upon
her, contrary to section 20 of the Offences against the Person Act . In that case
the Court of Criminal Appeal (at p. 200) approved the direction given by the trial
judge in these terms: \u8220\'3fWill you say whether the conduct of the prisoner
amounted to a threat of causing injury to this young woman, was the act of jumping
the natural consequence of the conduct of the prisoner, and was the grievous bodily
harm the result of the conduct of the prisoner?\u8221\'3f That, said the Court, was
a proper direction as far as the law went, and they were satisfied that there was
evidence before the jury of the prisoner causing actual bodily harm to the
woman. \u8220\'3fNo-one could say,\u8221\'3f said Darling J. when giving the
judgment of the Court, \u8220\'3fthat if she jumped from the window it was not a
natural consequence of the prisoner\rquote s conduct. It was a very likely thing
for a woman to do as the result of the threats of a man who was conducting himself
as this man indisputably was.\u8221\'3f
\par
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
{\b0 \cf1 \f5 \ri0 \i0 \qj \fs20 \li0
{\b0 \cf1 \f5 \ri0 \i0 \qj \fs20 \li0
This Court thinks that that correctly states the law, and that Mr. Carus was wrong
in submitting to this Court that the jury must be sure that a defendant, who is
charged either with inflicting grievous bodily harm or assault occasioning actual
bodily harm, must foresee the actions of the victim which result in the grievous
bodily harm, or the actual bodily harm. That, in the view of this Court, is not the
test. The test is: Was it the natural result of what the alleged assailant said and
did, in the sense that it was something that could reasonably have been foreseen as
the consequence of what he was saying or doing? As it was put in one of the old
cases, it had got to be shown to be his act, and if of course the victim does
something so \u8220\'3fdaft,\u8221\'3f in the words of the appellant in this case,
or so unexpected, not not that this particular assailant did not actually foresee
it but that no reasonable man could be expected to foresee it, then it is only in a
very remote and unreal sense a consequence of his assault, it is really occasioned
by a voluntary act on the part of the victim which could not reasonably be foreseen
and which breaks the chain of causation between the assault and the harm or injury.
\par
}
}
\u160\'3f
}
{\b1 \cf25 \f5 \i1 \fs20
*103
}
}
\par
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
{\b0 \cf1 \f5 \ri0 \i0 \qj \fs20 \li0
{\b0 \cf1 \f5 \ri0 \i0 \qj \fs20 \li0
In those circumstances, bearing in mind that that is the law, can any fault be
found with the summing-up of the learned Chairman? Undoubtedly, the learned
Chairman took a strong line when, in his summing-up, he told the jury that, if the
girl\rquote s account of what induced her to jump out of the car was true, then
their verdict would be guilty. But the jury had to consider: is the girl\rquote s
story, broadly speaking, about these two assaults\u8212\'3fparticularly the assault
occasioning actual bodily harm with which this Court is concerned\u8212\'3fright,
or may the appellant\rquote s story be true, in which he fails entirely to account
for the girl\rquote s jumping out of the car, except possibly by the alcohol she
had taken, and her anger at his conduct\u8212\'3fsuggested not, apparently, by the
appellant himself, but by his counsel? No fault can be found with the learned
Chairman for in effect withdrawing this from the jury in the sense that he told
them, \u8220\'3fif you accept the evidence of the girl in preference to that of the
man, that means that there was an assault occasioning actual bodily harm, that
means that she did jump out as a direct result of what he was threatening her with,
and what he was doing to her, holding her coat, telling her he had beaten up girls
who had refused his advances, and that means that through his acts he was in law
and in fact responsible for the injuries which were caused to her by her decision,
if it can be called that, to get away from his violence, his threats, by jumping
out of the car.\u8221\'3f
\par
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
{\b0 \cf1 \f5 \ri0 \i0 \qj \fs20 \li0
{\b0 \cf1 \f5 \ri0 \i0 \qj \fs20 \li0
The Court has come to the conclusion, after the assistance of the arguments of
counsel on both sides, that the judge was right to tell the jury that it was their
duty to convict if they accepted the evidence of the girl, and there was no
misdirection involved in his telling them just that. For those reasons, the Court
finds no misdirection in the summing-up, and nothing in the grounds of complaint
made on behalf of the appellant, and this appeal against conviction must be
dismissed.
\par
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
{\b1 \cf1 \f5 \ri0 \i0 \qj \fs20 \li0
{\b1 \cf1 \f5 \i0 \fs20
Representation
\par
}
}
}
}
{\b0 \cf1 \f5 \ri0 \i0 \qj \fs20 \li0
}{\fi-360 \li {\*\pn \pnlvlblt \ilvl0 \ls1 \pnindent400 \pnf1 {\f2 \pntxtb
\u160\'3f}}{\listtext \b0 \cf1 \f5 \ri200 \i0 \qj \fs20 \li400 \u160\'3f\tab }\ls1
{\pntext }
{\pard }\b0 \cf1 \f5 \ri200 \i0 \qj \fs20 \li400
Solicitors: F. S. Moore and Price, Wallasey , for the Crown.
\par {\pntext }
}
}
}
{\qr \b0 \cf1 \f5 \ri0 \i1 \fs20 \li0
Appeal dismissed.
\par
}
}
}
{\b0 \cf5 \f5 \i0 \fs20
}
{\b0 \qc \cf1 \f5 \ri0 \i0 \fs20 \li0
}
}
}
}\sect }

R V Roberts (Kenneth Joseph)

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

R V Roberts (Kenneth Joseph)

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

{\rtf1 \ansi

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen