M, R v

M, R v

Section 20 was not an obvious alternative offence on the evidence, as the jury faced a clear choice between deliberate stabbing with intent to cause serious harm or accident; the judge was entitled not to leave section 20 to the jury. The previous knife incidents were properly admitted to rebut the appellant's claim of accidental possession. The jury directions on intent, taken as a whole, were sufficient and did not render the conviction unsafe.

Parties
Prosecution: Regina; Appellant: M
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 June 2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
appeal dismissed; leave to appeal on ground 1 refused
Legal Topics
Wounding With Intent, Alternative Verdicts, Admissibility of Previous Incidents, Jury Directions, Intent in Criminal Law
Criminal Law Wounding With Intent Alternative Verdicts Admissibility of Previous Incidents Jury Directions Intent in Criminal Law

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

Parties

Regina

Prosecution

M

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred by not leaving the alternative offence of unlawful wounding (section 20) to the jury
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge erred in admitting evidence of previous knife-related incidents
  3. 3 Whether the jury was properly directed on the issue of intent

Ratio Decidendi

Section 20 was not an obvious alternative offence on the evidence, as the jury faced a clear choice between deliberate stabbing with intent to cause serious harm or accident; the judge was entitled not to leave section 20 to the jury. The previous knife incidents were properly admitted to rebut the appellant's claim of accidental possession. The jury directions on intent, taken as a whole, were sufficient and did not render the conviction unsafe.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed; leave to appeal on ground 1 refused

Orders

  • Appeal against conviction dismissed
  • Leave to appeal on ground 1 (admissibility of previous incidents) refused