Nethercott, R. v [2023] EWCA Crim 248 (23 February 2023)

Nethercott, R. v [2023] EWCA Crim 248 (23 February 2023)

The conviction for manslaughter (count 6) is unsafe because the judge misdirected the jury by stating there was agreed medical evidence that the fatal fall was caused by a punch, when the expert had accepted it could have been a punch or a hard push. The jury were never explicitly corrected on this misstatement, which was central to the issue they had to decide.

Citation
[2023] EWCA Crim 248
Parties
Prosecution: Rex; Appellant/defendant: Bobby George Nethercott
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 February 2023
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeal against conviction on count 6 (manslaughter) allowed; conviction quashed; retrial ordered. Renewed applications for leave to appeal against conviction on other grounds and against sentence refused.
Legal Topics
Manslaughter, Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm, Bad Character Evidence, Self Defence, Jury Directions, Retrial, Sentencing Guidelines
Criminal Law Manslaughter Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm Bad Character Evidence Self Defence Jury Directions Retrial Sentencing Guidelines

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rex

Prosecution

Bobby George Nethercott

Appellant/defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the conviction for manslaughter (count 6) is safe given the judge's misdirection regarding expert evidence
  2. 2 Whether the admission of bad character evidence from previous convictions was proper
  3. 3 Whether the absence of written jury directions rendered the conviction unsafe

Ratio Decidendi

The conviction for manslaughter (count 6) is unsafe because the judge misdirected the jury by stating there was agreed medical evidence that the fatal fall was caused by a punch, when the expert had accepted it could have been a punch or a hard push. The jury were never explicitly corrected on this misstatement, which was central to the issue they had to decide.

Court Disposition

Appeal against conviction on count 6 (manslaughter) allowed; conviction quashed; retrial ordered. Renewed applications for leave to appeal against conviction on other grounds and against sentence refused.

Orders

  • Appeal against conviction on count 6 allowed
  • Conviction on count 6 quashed