McAuley, R. v

McAuley, R. v

The judge erred in ruling, as a matter of law, that the facts could not amount to a 'good reason' under section 139(4) without hearing evidence; the defence should have been left to the jury.

Parties
Respondent: Regina; Appellant: Marcus McAuley
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 October 2009
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
conviction quashed, appeal allowed, no retrial ordered
Legal Topics
Possession of Bladed Article, Statutory Defence, Good Reason, Imminent Threat, Jury Determination
Criminal Law Possession of Bladed Article Statutory Defence Good Reason Imminent Threat Jury Determination

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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Respondent

Marcus McAuley

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether fear of imminent attack constitutes a 'good reason' for carrying a bladed article under section 139(4) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988
  2. 2 Whether the judge erred in ruling out the statutory defence before hearing evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The judge erred in ruling, as a matter of law, that the facts could not amount to a 'good reason' under section 139(4) without hearing evidence; the defence should have been left to the jury.

Court Disposition

conviction quashed, appeal allowed, no retrial ordered

Orders

  • conviction quashed
  • no retrial