Cockburn, R v

Cockburn, R v

The contraption set by the appellant was a mechanical contrivance, triggered by a wire and gravity, and therefore constituted an 'other engine' under section 31 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861. The Recorder was correct to leave the question to the jury, and the jury's verdict was logically consistent with the law and evidence.

Parties
Respondent: Regina; Appellant: Nigel Cockburn
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 February 2008
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Statutory Interpretation, Offences Against the Person Act 1861, Setting Mantraps, Mechanical Contrivances
Criminal Law Statutory Interpretation Offences Against the Person Act 1861 Setting Mantraps Mechanical Contrivances

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Respondent

Nigel Cockburn

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the contraption set by the appellant constituted an 'other engine' under section 31 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861
  2. 2 Whether the Recorder was correct in law to leave the question to the jury
  3. 3 Whether the verdicts on different counts were logically inconsistent

Ratio Decidendi

The contraption set by the appellant was a mechanical contrivance, triggered by a wire and gravity, and therefore constituted an 'other engine' under section 31 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861. The Recorder was correct to leave the question to the jury, and the jury's verdict was logically consistent with the law and evidence.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed