Veysey v R.

Veysey v R.

Urine, when thrown in a cupful at the face of a victim, is capable of being regarded as an unwholesome and therefore noxious thing under section 24 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861; the prosecution of such offences is justified given the seriousness and repeated nature of the conduct; delays and procedural issues did not render the trial unfair; sentences imposed were appropriate and not manifestly excessive, save for an arithmetical error corrected for Beardshaw.

Parties
Applicant/appellant: Barry Terrence Veysey; Applicant: Damien Munroe; Appellant: Jamie Beardshaw; Respondent: The Queen
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 July 2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Applications by Veysey and Munroe refused; Beardshaw's appeal allowed to correct arithmetical error in sentence.
Legal Topics
Assault, Offences Against the Person, Prison Discipline, Sentencing, Section 24 Offences Against the Person Act 1861, Noxious Substances, Appeal Against Conviction, Appeal Against Sentence
Criminal Law Assault Offences Against the Person Prison Discipline Sentencing Section 24 Offences Against the Person Act 1861 Noxious Substances Appeal Against Conviction +1 more

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 3 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Barry Terrence Veysey

Applicant/appellant

Damien Munroe

Applicant

Jamie Beardshaw

Appellant

The Queen

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether urine is a 'noxious thing' under section 24 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861
  2. 2 Whether the prosecution of 'potting' incidents as section 24 offences is appropriate
  3. 3 Whether delays and procedural decisions rendered the trial unfair or an abuse of process

Ratio Decidendi

Urine, when thrown in a cupful at the face of a victim, is capable of being regarded as an unwholesome and therefore noxious thing under section 24 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861; the prosecution of such offences is justified given the seriousness and repeated nature of the conduct; delays and procedural issues did not render the trial unfair; sentences imposed were appropriate and not manifestly excessive, save for an arithmetical error corrected for Beardshaw.

Court Disposition

Applications by Veysey and Munroe refused; Beardshaw's appeal allowed to correct arithmetical error in sentence.

Orders

  • Veysey: Application for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence refused.
  • Munroe: Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.