R v Clarke (Appellant) (On Appeal from the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division))R v McDaid (Appellant) (On Appeal from the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division))(Consolidated Appeals), (2008)

Extract

---

R v Clarke (Appellant) (On Appeal from the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division))R v McDaid (Appellant) (On Appeal from the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division))(Consolidated Appeals), (2008)

HOUSE OF LORDS

SESSION 2007-08

[2008] UKHL 8

on appeal from: [2006] EWCA Civ 1196

OPINIONS

OF THE LORDS OF APPEAL

FOR JUDGMENT IN THE CAUSE

R v Clarke (Appellant) (On Appeal from the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division))

R v McDaid (Appellant) (On Appeal from the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division))

(Consolidated Appeals)

Appellate Committee

Lord Bingham of Cornhill

Lord Scott of Foscote

Lord Rodger of Earlsferry

Lord Carswell

Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood

Counsel

Appellants:

Joel Bennathan QC

Peter Wilcock

(Instructed by Hadgkiss Hughes & Beale)

Respondents:

David Perry QC

Duncan Perry QC

(Instructed by Director of Public Prosecutions)

Hearing date:

28 NOVEMBER 2007

ON

WEDNESDAY 6 FEBRUARY 2008

HOUSE OF LORDS

OPINIONS OF THE LORDS OF APPEAL FOR JUDGMENT

IN THE CAUSE

R v Clarke (Appellant) (On Appeal from the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division))

R v McDaid (Appellant) (On Appeal from the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division))

(Consolidated Appeals)

[2007] UKHL 8

LORD BINGHAM OF CORNHILL

My Lords,

1.  On 23 April 1997 in the Crown Court at Worcester each of the appellants was convicted by a jury of causing grievous bodily harm with intent contrary to section 18 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861. For that offence each was sentenced to 12 years’ imprisonment. The first appellant received a concurrent sentence for another offence and the second appellant received a consecutive sentence of 2 years’ for other offences, making a total sentence in his case of 14 years’. For the purposes of this appeal, referred to the Court of Appeal by the Criminal Cases Review Commission, it is accepted that when the trial of the appellants began in April 1997, although leave to prefer voluntary bills had previously been given on two occasions, there was no signed indictment before the Crown Court. The evidence at the trial ended on Friday 18 April. On Monday 21 April 1997 the appellants were arraigned on an additional (but alternative) count of inflicting grievous bodily harm contrary to section 20 of the 1861 Act. The existing form of indictment was then amended by leave of the trial judge, a copy of the form as amended was signed by the proper officer of the court and the amended form was treated as the indictment upon which the jury convicted (although not on the added count). The short questions to be resolved in this appeal thus arise: whether the absence of a signed indictment at the outset of and during most of the trial had the legal effect of invalidating the proceedings? And, if so, whether such invalidity was cured by the late signature of the proper officer?

2.  At the heart of the issues to be decided lie sections 1 and 2 of the Administration of Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1933 which, as enacted and omitting provisions not immediately germane to this appeal, prov...

See the full content of this document

---