Cheeseman v R

Cheeseman v R

The judge erred in limiting the householder defence to intruder cases; the statutory language covers belief that the injured party was a trespasser. However, the Board found the appellant did not genuinely believe force was necessary for self-defence, rendering the conviction safe despite the legal error.

Parties
Appellant: Steven Cheeseman; Respondent: Regina
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 February 2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
appeal dismissed; conviction upheld
Legal Topics
Self Defence, Householder Defence, Wounding With Intent, Trespass, Statutory Interpretation
Criminal Law Military Law Self Defence Householder Defence Wounding With Intent Trespass Statutory Interpretation

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

Steven Cheeseman

Appellant

Regina

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the householder defence under section 76 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 applies where the injured person entered lawfully but became a trespasser
  2. 2 Whether there was evidence the appellant believed the injured party to be a trespasser
  3. 3 Whether the conviction is safe despite legal error

Ratio Decidendi

The judge erred in limiting the householder defence to intruder cases; the statutory language covers belief that the injured party was a trespasser. However, the Board found the appellant did not genuinely believe force was necessary for self-defence, rendering the conviction safe despite the legal error.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed; conviction upheld