CS, R v [2012] EWCA Crim 389 (29 February 2012)

CS, R v [2012] EWCA Crim 389 (29 February 2012)

The legislative scheme governing child abduction under s.1 of the Child Abduction Act 1984 does not permit the defence of necessity where a child is removed from the jurisdiction without consent; even if necessity were available, the facts did not support an objectively reasonable belief in imminent threat or a...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2012] EWCA Crim 389
Parties
Respondent: Regina; Appellant: CS
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 February 2012
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Crown Court Conviction
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Child Abduction, Defence of Necessity, Jurisdiction, Care Orders
Criminal Law Family Law Child Abduction Defence of Necessity Jurisdiction Care Orders

Source-derived case record

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Respondent

CS

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Crown Court Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defence of necessity is available to a charge of child abduction under s.1 of the Child Abduction Act 1984
  2. 2 Whether the legislative scheme permits necessity as a defence
  3. 3 Whether the facts support a defence of necessity

Ratio Decidendi

The legislative scheme governing child abduction under s.1 of the Child Abduction Act 1984 does not permit the defence of necessity where a child is removed from the jurisdiction without consent; even if necessity were available, the facts did not support an objectively reasonable belief in imminent threat or a proportionate response.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No defence of necessity available under s.1 of the Child Abduction Act 1984
  • Appellant to be sentenced for child abduction