Shanks, R. v [2003] EWCA Crim 680 (19 March 2003)

Shanks, R. v [2003] EWCA Crim 680 (19 March 2003)

The trial judge correctly admitted and directed the jury on the previous conviction for possessing a firearm with intent to endanger life as relevant to intent, did not misrepresent its effect, and did not improperly bind the jury as to the defendant's state of mind at the time of the killing. The directions did not prejudice the defendant's credibility on diminished responsibility or provocation. The appeal was dismissed on both grounds.

Citation
[2003] EWCA Crim 680
Parties
Prosecution: Regina (The Crown); Defendant: Thomas Shanks
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 March 2003
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction After Second Trial
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Murder, Diminished Responsibility, Provocation, Admissibility of Previous Convictions, Intent, Section 74(3) PACE, Section 78 PACE
Criminal Law Murder Diminished Responsibility Provocation Admissibility of Previous Convictions Intent Section 74(3) PACE Section 78 PACE

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 4 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina (The Crown)

Prosecution

Thomas Shanks

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction After Second Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge misdirected the jury regarding the effect of a previous conviction for possessing a firearm with intent to endanger life
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge wrongly indicated that the previous conviction bound the jury in the murder trial

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge correctly admitted and directed the jury on the previous conviction for possessing a firearm with intent to endanger life as relevant to intent, did not misrepresent its effect, and did not improperly bind the jury as to the defendant's state of mind at the time of the killing. The directions did not prejudice the defendant's credibility on diminished responsibility or provocation. The appeal was dismissed on both grounds.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Conviction for murder upheld