Daniel Wills v R

Daniel Wills v R

The conviction was safe as the only possible defence was self-defence, which was properly put to the jury and rejected. The failure to call PCSO Cave did not render the conviction unsafe, and the applicant's grievances and distress did not provide a lawful excuse for the assault. There was no basis to admit further evidence or extend time for appeal.

Parties
Applicant: Daniel Wills; Respondent: Rex
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 July 2024
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Conviction, Extension of Time, and Admission of Further Evidence
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Assault of Emergency Worker, Self Defence, Extension of Time, Admission of Further Evidence, Fair Trial, Human Rights

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Daniel Wills

Applicant

Rex

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Conviction, Extension of Time, and Admission of Further Evidence

  1. 1 Whether the conviction for assault of an emergency worker was unsafe
  2. 2 Whether failure to call PCSO Cave as a witness rendered the conviction unsafe
  3. 3 Whether distress and alleged human rights violations provided a defence or mitigation

Ratio Decidendi

The conviction was safe as the only possible defence was self-defence, which was properly put to the jury and rejected. The failure to call PCSO Cave did not render the conviction unsafe, and the applicant's grievances and distress did not provide a lawful excuse for the assault. There was no basis to admit further evidence or extend time for appeal.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Application for extension of time refused
  • Application to admit further evidence refused