Tony Storey

Duress by indirect threats R v Brandford [2016] EWCA Crim 1794, [2017] 4 WLR 17, Court of Appeal:

any future debate about what precise distance has to exist between the appellant and the blade (given that in the precedent cases, six feet was close enough but two floors of a building was not). The question is one of accessibility and availability rather than simply precise distances. Interestingly, the court in Henderson made reference to the issue of whether the knife was to be used in criminal activity, possibly creating an unanticipated curveball in terms of future precedent. This is all the more curious given the purposive approach to interpretation that has been taken throughout all the cases. The offence of ‘having a blade in a public place’ contrary to s. 139 Criminal Justice Act 1988 is one which requires no action on the part of the defendant, other than the simple possession (or rather ‘having with him’) of the bladed article. The bladed article does not have to be held for a specific purpose, criminal or otherwise, and in fact, many defendants have been caught by the legislation when in possession of the knife for what could be construed as fairly innocent reasons (e.g. using a knife to cut tiles for work (DPP v Gregson [1993] 96 Cr. App. R. 240) or using a bladed article to work on a car in the street (R v Manning [1997] Lexis Citation 5150)). Although the earlier cases appeared to involve some sort of criminal activity within their facts, to make explicit reference to criminal enterprise in the summary of law could be construed as something of a red herring. One could query what might have been the case if, for example, the knife in Henderson had been suspiciously taped to the top of the glove compartment in the car, rather than having been left in a bag containing baby changing items? A clever knife carrier might choose his hiding place wisely to avoid any suggestion of criminal enterprise, whereas a genuine defendant, who was legitimately using his knife for work but who chose his hiding place carefully to avoid detection or challenge, may be considered to be involved in criminal enterprise and therefore looked upon with greater suspicion. It remains to be seen whether this reference to ‘criminal enterprise’ creates a new bandwagon for future defendants to jump upon in an effort to disguise otherwise illegal activity.

Unlawful and Dangerous: A Comparative Analysis of Unlawful Act Manslaughter in English, Australian and Canadian Law

The crime of unlawful act manslaughter (otherwise known as constructive manslaughter) exists in English and Australian common law. It is also an offence contrary to the Canadian Criminal Code. In all three jurisdictions the offence shares the same essential elements, including the requirements that the accused commit an act which is both unlawful and dangerous. This article will explore the case law on unlawful act manslaughter in Australia, Canada and England, focusing on the elements of an unlawful act and dangerousness, in order to identify similarities and differences in the application of the law in the three jurisdictions. Where differences are found, consideration will be given to the question whether English law should be reformulated.

‘Rational’ Reconstruction: Diminished Responsibility and Substantially Impaired Ability to Form a Rational Judgment

Case note on R v Conroy [2017] EWCA Crim 81. Court of Appeal, and R v Squelch [2017] EWCA Crim 204, Court of Appeal

A Dangerous Situation: The Duty of Care in Gross Negligence Manslaughter: R v Bowler [2015] EWCA Crim 849 R v S [2015] EWCA Crim 558

Case commentary on R v Bowler [2015] EWCA Crim 849, Court of Appeal and R v S [2015] EWCA Crim 558, Court of Appeal

Reforming Offences Against the Person In Defence of ‘Moderate’ Constructivism

Whilst the criminal law typically favours the principle of correspondence between actus reus and mens rea, the current law governing offences against the person takes an approach which may be more accurately defined as ‘moderate’ constructivism. This approach is based on consideration of both the defendant’s mens rea and the degree of harm caused by the defendant’s actions. The recent Law Commission Scoping Consultation Paper Reform of Offences against the Person appears to prefer reform based on a move towards the principle of correspondence. This article discusses the theoretical rationale for both the adoption of the correspondence principle and the retention of a moderate constructivist approach in the context of offences against the person. Consideration is given to the fairness of attributing liability to a defendant for the unforeseen consequences of her actions and whether such an approach can be justified by the change in D’s normative position based on her decision to use violence. Consideration is also given to the concept of fair labelling and to potential lacunae that may be created as a result of a move towards a set of offences based on the correspondence principle.

Loss of control: ‘sufficient evidence’: R v Jewell [2014] EWCA Crim 414, Court of AppealR v Workman [2014] EWCA Crim 575, Court of AppealR v Barnsdale-Quean [2014] EWCA Crim 1418, Court of Appeal

Case note on R v Jewell [2014] EWCA Crim 414; R v Workman [2014] EWCA Crim 575; and R v Barnsdale-Quean [2014] EWCA Crim 1418

English legal system: directions

English legal system: directions guides students through this important subject so they can approach their studies.