R v Mitchell (Respondent) (Northern Ireland) - [2016] UKSC 55

Michaelmas Term

[2016] UKSC 55

On appeal from: [2015] NICA 34

JUDGMENT

R v Mitchell (Respondent) (Northern Ireland)

before

Lord Kerr

Lord Clarke
Lord Hughes
Lord Toulson
Lord Hodge

JUDGMENT GIVEN ON

19 October 2016

Heard on 7 July 2016

Appellant Respondent

Liam McCollum QC

Frank O’Donoghue QC

David Russell Sean Devine

(Instructed by Public

(Instructed by KRW Law

Prosecution Service) LLP)

LORD KERR: (with whom Lord Clarke, Lord Hughes, Lord Toulson and

Lord Hodge agree)

Introduction

1. On 20 October 2010, following a trial before a judge and jury at Belfast Crown Court, Angeline Mitchell was convicted of the murder on 11 May 2009 of Anthony Robin. Ms Mitchell and Mr Robin had been partners and had lived together for about three years. They had separated some time before May 2009 but they continued occasionally to meet and spend time together. On 10 May 2009 they met at a Belfast hotel at about 3pm. They had something to eat and they drank alcohol there during the remainder of the afternoon and into the evening. They then went to

Mr Robin’s flat in Fitzroy Avenue, Belfast, where they continued to drink alcohol.

A friend of Mr Robin, Michael McGeown, and Mr McGeown’s girlfriend,

Jacqueline Cushnan, were also staying at the flat. All four watched a film on television together and then played some music. At about 12.15am on 11 May 2009. Mr Robin received a telephone call from the home of a former partner, Rosena Oliver. She and Mr Robin were the parents of two sons, Anthony junior and Thomas. The sons lived with their mother. After receiving the telephone call, Mr Robin went

to Ms Oliver’s home. Ms Mitchell accompanied him. While they were there,

Anthony junior was arrested by police officers. Apparently, this was because of a dispute that he had had with his mother. It was then decided that Mr Robin and Ms Mitchell should return to the flat at Fitzroy Avenue and that they should bring the younger son, Thomas, with them.

3. On their return to the flat, Mr Robin and Ms Mitchell discussed Anthony

junior’s arrest with Mr McGeown and Ms Cushnan for a short time. After that Mr

McGeown and Ms Cushnan went to bed. Ms Mitchell continued to talk to Mr Robin

about his son’s arrest and repeatedly told him that he should go to the police station

to which Anthony junior had been taken. He told her to mind her own business. Exchanges between them became more heated. There is a dispute as to what happened next but it is accepted that, at some stage, Ms Mitchell obtained a knife. It is also accepted that she stabbed Mr Robin. He sustained five knife wounds, one of which caused his death. This was a wound to the left side of the chest which was approximately 20 centimetres deep.

4. Other wounds suffered by Mr Robin were to the left side of the scalp, to the right parietal area of the scalp and…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Mitchell (Respondent) (Northern Ireland) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2016] UKSC 55
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Angeline Mitchell was convicted of the murder of Anthony Robin, a crime she claimed was committed in self-defence. Mitchell appealed against her conviction, arguing that the trial judge had failed to direct the jury properly on the use of bad character evidence. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and quashed the conviction, holding that the trial judge had not directed the jury to be satisfied of the truth of the evidence of bad character before it could be taken into account. The prosecution appealed to the UK Supreme Court. The central issue was whether the prosecution must prove the truth of the allegations of bad character before the jury can take them into account in determining whether the defendant is guilty or not. The Supreme Court held that the jury is not required to be satisfied of the truth and accuracy of the individual facts said to provide evidence of propensity, but rather that the jury should be directed that, if they are to take propensity into account, they should be sure that it has been proved. This does not require that each individual item of evidence said to show propensity must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. It means that all the material touching on the issue should be considered with a view to reaching a conclusion as to whether they are sure that the existence of a propensity has been established. In this case, the trial judge failed to give adequate directions as to how the question of propensity should be approached by the jury, so the conviction was unsafe and it was properly quashed.

Orders