Ward, R. v [2023] EWCA Crim 1310 (26 October 2023)
The conviction was unsafe due to a clear misdirection in the Route to Verdict document, which incorrectly placed the burden of proving the reasonableness of force on the defendant. Repeated oral directions on the burden of proof were insufficient to cure the misdirection, especially given the prominence of the written directions and the complexity of the issue.
- Citation
- [2023] EWCA Crim 1310
- Parties
- Prosecution: Rex; Appellant: Harry John Ward
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 26 October 2023
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
- Outcome
- conviction quashed, retrial refused
- Legal Topics
- Judicial Misdirection, Self Defence, Burden of Proof, Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm, Retrial Discretion
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Rex
Prosecution
Harry John Ward
Appellant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether judicial misdirection on self-defence rendered the conviction unsafe
- 2 Whether the burden of proof was correctly explained to the jury
- 3 Whether a retrial should be ordered after quashing the conviction
Ratio Decidendi
The conviction was unsafe due to a clear misdirection in the Route to Verdict document, which incorrectly placed the burden of proving the reasonableness of force on the defendant. Repeated oral directions on the burden of proof were insufficient to cure the misdirection, especially given the prominence of the written directions and the complexity of the issue.
Court Disposition
conviction quashed, retrial refused
Orders
- conviction on count 3 quashed
- no retrial ordered
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment