W, R v

W, R v

The conviction was safe because, despite the judge's omission of a specific direction based on Sheppard, the summing-up as a whole made clear to the jury that they had to be sure the appellant knew her child needed medical attention and was at risk. The evidence was sufficient for the jury to conclude the appellant must have known of the risk and failed to act.

Parties
Prosecution: Regina; Appellant: Emma W
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 October 2006
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
appeal dismissed; conviction upheld
Legal Topics
Child Cruelty, Wilful Neglect, Criminal Appeals, Jury Directions
Criminal Law Child Protection Child Cruelty Wilful Neglect Criminal Appeals Jury Directions

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Prosecution

Emma W

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the conviction for wilful neglect was safe given the trial judge's directions to the jury
  2. 2 Whether there was sufficient evidence for the case to go to the jury
  3. 3 Whether the judge properly directed the jury on the mental element of 'wilful' neglect

Ratio Decidendi

The conviction was safe because, despite the judge's omission of a specific direction based on Sheppard, the summing-up as a whole made clear to the jury that they had to be sure the appellant knew her child needed medical attention and was at risk. The evidence was sufficient for the jury to conclude the appellant must have known of the risk and failed to act.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed; conviction upheld

Orders

  • Reporting restriction remains: the child A must not be identified.