Kichens, R. v

Kichens, R. v

Even if the judge erred in withdrawing self-defence and prevention of crime defences from the jury, the conviction was safe because the facts did not support a reasonable prospect of acquittal; the complainant was not committing a crime, no crime was imminent, and the appellant had other options.

Parties
Prosecution: Regina; Appellant: Peter Graig Kichens; Complainant: Kathleen Brown
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 June 2011
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Common Assault, Self Defence, Prevention of Crime, Necessity, Sentencing
Criminal Law Common Assault Self Defence Prevention of Crime Necessity Sentencing

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

Parties

Regina

Prosecution

Peter Graig Kichens

Appellant

Kathleen Brown

Complainant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant could rely on self-defence or prevention of crime as a defence to common assault against an innocent third party
  2. 2 Whether the judge wrongly withdrew defences from the jury
  3. 3 Whether the conviction was safe despite any error in withdrawing defences

Ratio Decidendi

Even if the judge erred in withdrawing self-defence and prevention of crime defences from the jury, the conviction was safe because the facts did not support a reasonable prospect of acquittal; the complainant was not committing a crime, no crime was imminent, and the appellant had other options.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Conviction for common assault upheld
  • Sentence of 6 months' imprisonment upheld