BHV, R. v [2022] EWCA Crim 1690 (06 December 2022)

BHV, R. v [2022] EWCA Crim 1690 (06 December 2022)

The Court of Appeal held that the evidence could properly justify a conclusion that BHV had a conditional intent to inflict serious harm on anyone who intervened, not just Leon Wardle, and that the trial judge was wrong to rule there was no case to answer for murder. The jury should be allowed to consider whether...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] EWCA Crim 1690
Parties
Applicant: Rex; Respondent: BHV
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 December 2022
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Prosecution Appeal Against Terminating Ruling (no Case to Answer)
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Joint Enterprise, Murder, Manslaughter, Conditional Intent, Accessorial Liability, No Case to Answer, Criminal Justice Act 2003
Criminal Law Joint Enterprise Murder Manslaughter Conditional Intent Accessorial Liability No Case to Answer Criminal Justice Act 2003

Source-derived case record

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rex

Applicant

BHV

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Prosecution Appeal Against Terminating Ruling (no Case to Answer)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was a case to answer for murder against BHV under joint enterprise principles and conditional intent
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge erred in ruling there was no case to answer for murder

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the evidence could properly justify a conclusion that BHV had a conditional intent to inflict serious harm on anyone who intervened, not just Leon Wardle, and that the trial judge was wrong to rule there was no case to answer for murder. The jury should be allowed to consider whether such intent was proved.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • Proceedings in the Crown Court to be resumed on Count 1 (murder) and continued in relation to Count 4 (possession of an offensive weapon) against BHV.