Matthew Haydon v R

Matthew Haydon v R

The statutory context and purpose of section 2 of the Explosive Substances Act 1883 require 'likely' to mean 'could well happen', not 'more likely than not'; evidence of devices and diagrams was properly admitted as relevant to expertise and intent; and the mental element for the offence is confined to intention or recklessness as to causing an explosion, not foresight of its magnitude or harm.

Parties
Appellant: Matthew Haydon; Respondent: Rex
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 January 2026
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Explosive Substances, Statutory Interpretation, Mens Rea, Evidence Admissibility
Criminal Law Explosive Substances Statutory Interpretation Mens Rea Evidence Admissibility

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

Parties

Matthew Haydon

Appellant

Rex

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Meaning of 'likely' in section 2 of the Explosive Substances Act 1883
  2. 2 Admissibility of evidence regarding devices and diagrams
  3. 3 Mental element required for section 2 offence

Ratio Decidendi

The statutory context and purpose of section 2 of the Explosive Substances Act 1883 require 'likely' to mean 'could well happen', not 'more likely than not'; evidence of devices and diagrams was properly admitted as relevant to expertise and intent; and the mental element for the offence is confined to intention or recklessness as to causing an explosion, not foresight of its magnitude or harm.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed