R v Carlton

The appellant appealed against his conviction of the murder of the deceased, whose death was caused by a large incised wound across the front of his neck, caused by a knife. The appellant argued that he had struck the deceased as a reaction to being struck by the deceased, not realising that he was still holding a knife that had fallen from the deceased and which the appellant had just picked up. The issues at trial were whether the appellant had the requisite intention, to kill or cause grievous bodily harm, at the time of the killing and whether the killing was unlawful, because it was not justified or excused as self-defence, accident or the result of provocation. The court examined the evidence presented at trial, including the appellant’s changing story in police interviews and evidence from a co-offender and a forensic pathologist, to determine whether it was reasonably open to the jury to find beyond reasonable doubt that the act which caused the deceased’s death did not occur in the circumstances contended by the appellant and whether it was reasonably open to the jury to find beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant intended to kill the deceased, or cause him grievous bodily harm, at the time of the act which caused death.

The court considered the grounds of appeal, including whether there was a misdirection or non-direction in the summing up to the jury regarding the operation of self-defence and whether the directions given to the jury as to the use they could make of post-offence conduct were sufficient. The court examined the directions given to the jury and determined that they were not misleading and that it was reasonably open to the jury to find beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant intended to kill the deceased, or cause him grievous bodily harm, at the time of the act which caused death. The court also determined that the directions given to the jury as to the use they could make of post-offence conduct were sufficient.

The appeal against conviction is dismissed.