Norman, R. v

Norman, R. v

The verdict was unsafe because the jury was not properly directed on the only basis upon which the Crown could have succeeded—namely, whether the appellant's words induced the child to remain with him. The essential elements of the Crown's case were not explained to the jury, and there was no evidence that the child heard or was influenced by the appellant's words. Therefore, the finding that the appellant did the act charged was quashed and a verdict of not guilty substituted.

Parties
Respondent: R; Appellant: Leslie Norman
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 July 2008
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Crown Court Conviction and Orders
Outcome
Appeal allowed; verdict quashed; not guilty verdict substituted; no retrial possible.
Legal Topics
Child Abduction, Unfitness to Plead, Criminal Procedure (insanity), Jury Directions, Hospital and Restriction Orders
Criminal Law Mental Health Law Child Abduction Unfitness to Plead Criminal Procedure (insanity) Jury Directions Hospital and Restriction Orders

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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

R

Respondent

Leslie Norman

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Crown Court Conviction and Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the jury was properly directed on the issue of whether the appellant did the act charged under the Child Abduction Act 1984
  2. 2 Whether the refusal to admit evidence from Ms Young was proper
  3. 3 Whether the verdict was safe given the appellant's unfitness to plead

Ratio Decidendi

The verdict was unsafe because the jury was not properly directed on the only basis upon which the Crown could have succeeded—namely, whether the appellant's words induced the child to remain with him. The essential elements of the Crown's case were not explained to the jury, and there was no evidence that the child heard or was influenced by the appellant's words. Therefore, the finding that the appellant did the act charged was quashed and a verdict of not guilty substituted.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; verdict quashed; not guilty verdict substituted; no retrial possible.

Orders

  • Finding of the jury quashed
  • Verdict of not guilty substituted