R v. Jones (Appellant) (On Appeal from the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)) (formerly R v. J (Appellant))R v. Milling (Appellant) (On Appeal from the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)) (formerly R v. M (Appellant))R v. Olditch (Appellant) (On Appeal from the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)) (formerly R v. O (Appellant))R v. Pritchard (Appellant) (On Appeal from the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)) (formerly R v. P (Appellant))R v. Richards (Appellant) (On Appeal from the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)) (formerly R v. R (Appellant)) (Conjoined Appeals)Ayliffe and others (Appellants) v. Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent) (Criminal Appeal from Her Majesty's High Court of Justice)Swain (Appellant) v. Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent) (Criminal Appeal from Her Majesty's High Court of Justice), (2006)

Status: [2006] UKHL 16

Linked as:

Extract

HOUSE

OF LORDS

SESSION 2005-06

[2006] UKHL 16

on appeal

from: [2004] EWCA Crim 1981 and

[2005] EWHC

684 (Admin)

OPINIONS

OF THE LORDS OF APPEAL

for judgment IN THE CAUSE

R v. Jones (Appellant) (On Appeal from

the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)) (formerly R v. J (Appellant))

R v. Milling (Appellant) (On Appeal from

the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)) (formerly R v. M (Appellant))

R v. Olditch (Appellant) (On Appeal from

the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)) (formerly R v. O (Appellant))

R v. Pritchard (Appellant) (On Appeal

from the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)) (formerly R v. P (Appellant))

R v. Richards (Appellant) (On Appeal

from the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)) (formerly R v. R (Appellant)) (Conjoined Appeals)

Ayliffe

and others (Appellants) v. Director

of Public Prosecutions (Respondent) (Criminal Appeal from Her Majesty's High

Court of Justice)

Swain

(Appellant) v. Director of Public

Prosecutions (Respondent) (Criminal Appeal from Her Majesty's High Court of

Justice)

Appellate

Committee

Lord Bingham of Cornhill

Lord Hoffmann

Lord Rodger of Earlsferry

Lord Carswell

Lord Mance

Hearing

dates:

20, 21, 22 and 23 February 2006

WEDNESDAY

29 march 2006

Counsel

Appellants

R v. Jones and Milling

James Lewis QC

James Hines

(Instructed by

Foresters)

R v. Olditch and Pritchard

Vaughan Lowe

Alison Macdonald

(Instructed by

Bindman & Partners)

R v. Richards

Keir Starmer QC

Nicholas Grief

Hugo Charlton

(Instructed by

Foresters)

Ayliffe v. Director of Public Prosecutions

Rabinder Singh QC

James Hines

Charlotte Kilroy

(Instructed by

Bindman & Partners)

Swain v. Director of Public Prosecutions

Rabinder Singh QC

Charlotte Kilroy

(Instructed by

Bindman & Partners)

Respondents

Crown

Malcolm Shaw QC

Mark Ellison

Sarah Whitehouse

(Instructed by

Crown Prosecution Service)

Director of Public

Prosecutions

David Perry

Hugo Keith

(Instructed by

Crown Prosecution Service)

HOUSE OF LORDS

OPINIONS OF THE LORDS OF APPEAL FOR JUDGMENT

IN THE CAUSE

R v. Jones (Appellant) (On Appeal from the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)) (formerly R v. J (Appellant))

R v. Milling (Appellant) (On Appeal from the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)) (formerly R v. M (Appellant))

R v. Olditch (Appellant) (On Appeal from the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)) (formerly R v. O (Appellant))

R v. Pritchard (Appellant) (On Appeal from the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)) (formerly R v. P (Appellant))

R v. Richards (Appellant) (On Appeal from the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)) (formerly R v. R (Appellant))

(Conjoined Appeals)

Ayliffe and others (Appellants) v. Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent) (Criminal Appeal from Her Majesty's High Court of Justice)

Swain (Appellant) v. Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent) (Criminal Appeal from Her Majesty's High Court of Justice)

[2006] UKHL 16

LORD BINGHAM OF CORNHILL

My Lords,

1. The immense, perhaps unprecedented, suffering of many people in many countries during the twentieth century had at least one positive result: that it prompted a strong international determination to prevent and prohibit the waging of aggressive war. This determination found expression in the international legal order, and understandably so, since it is states which wage such wars and states that must suppress them. At issue in these appeals is the extent to which, if at all, this international determination is transposed into the domestic legal order of England and Wales.

2. There are 20 appellants before the House. All of them committed acts in February or March 2003 which were, or are alleged to have been, criminal offences, unless there was legal justification for what they did or are said to have done. The issue in each appeal concerns this legal justification, which (depending on the charge in question) differs somewhat from case to case. But the common feature of all the appeals, and the feature which makes the cases important, is that they all raise the question whether the crime of aggression, if established in customary international law, is a crime recognised by or forming part of the domestic criminal law of England and Wales. The appellants acted as they did because they wished to impede, obstruct or disrupt the commission of that crime, or what they believed would be the commission of that crime, by Her Majesty's Government or the Government of the United States against Iraq in the weeks and days before (as we now know) hostilities began. They accordingly contend, or have contended, that they were legally justified in acting as they did. The H...

See the full content of this document