Heys, R. v

The convictions are unsafe because the jury may have applied the incorrect legal test of reasonable belief rather than honest belief, due to misdirection and lack of clear correction by the judge.

Parties: Prosecutor: Regina; Appellant: Carl John Heys; Appellant: Kevin John Murtagh
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 09 August 2011
Procedural Posture: Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome: convictions on counts 1 and 2 quashed; no retrial ordered
Legal Topics: Child Abduction, Defence of Honest Belief, Jury Directions, Unsafe Conviction, Retrial

Criminal Law Child Abduction Defence of Honest Belief Jury Directions Unsafe Conviction Retrial

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7

Parties

Regina

Prosecutor

Carl John Heys

Appellant

Kevin John Murtagh

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

1 Whether the jury was properly directed on the defence of honest belief under section 2(3)(b) of the Child Abduction Act 1984
2 Whether the convictions on counts 1 and 2 are unsafe due to misdirection
3 Whether a retrial is appropriate given time served and evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The convictions are unsafe because the jury may have applied the incorrect legal test of reasonable belief rather than honest belief, due to misdirection and lack of clear correction by the judge.

Court Disposition

convictions on counts 1 and 2 quashed; no retrial ordered

Orders

Convictions on counts 1 and 2 quashed
No order for retrial