R v Moloney

Parliamentary Archives,
HL/PO/JU/18/245

Regina (Respondent)
v.

Moloney (Appellant) (On Appeal from the Court of Appeal

(Criminal Division))

JUDGMENT

Die Jovis 21° Martii 1985

Upon Report from the Appellate Committee to whom was
referred the Cause Regina against Moloney, That the Committee
had heard Counsel on Monday the 28th and Tuesday the 29th
days of January last upon the Petition and Appeal of Alistair
Baden Roy Moloney praying that the matter of the Order set
forth in the Schedule thereto, namely an Order of Her
Majesty's Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) of the 8th day
of June 1984, might be reviewed before Her Majesty the Queen
in Her Court of Parliament and that the said Order might be
reversed, varied or altered or that the Petitioner might have
such other relief in the premises as to Her Majesty the Queen
in Her Court of Parliament might seem meet; and Counsel
having been heard on behalf of the Director of Public
Prosecutions (on behalf of Her Majesty) Respondent to the
said Appeal, and due consideration had this day of what was
offered on either side in this Cause:

It is Ordered and Adjudged, by the Lords Spiritual and
Temporal in the Court of Parliament of Her Majesty the Queen
assembled, That the said Order of her Majesty's Court of
Appeal (Criminal Division) of the 8th day of June 1984
complained of in the said Appeal be, and the same is hereby,
Set Aside save for the grant of legal aid and that the
verdict of murder be, and the same is hereby, also Set Aside
and a verdict of manslaughter substituted: And it is further
Ordered, That the Certified Question be answered in the
negative: And it is also further Ordered, That the Cause

be, and the same is hereby, remitted back to the Court of
Appeal (Criminal Division) for hearing at the earliest
possible date to determine the appropriate sentence.

Cler: Parliamentor:

HOUSE OF LORDS

REGINA (RESPONDENT)

V.

MOLONEY (APPELLANT)

(ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL

DIVISION))

Lord Chancellor
Lord Fraser of Tullybelton
Lord Edmund-Davies
Lord Keith of Kinkel
Lord Bridge of Harwich

LORD HAILSHAM OF ST. MARYLEBONE, L.C.

My Lords,

For the reasons which appear in the speech about to be
delivered by my noble and learned friend Lord Bridge of Harwich,
which I have had the privilege of reading in draft and with which
I agree, the disposal of this case cannot be in doubt. The appeal
must be allowed. The verdict of murder must be set aside. A
verdict of manslaughter must be substituted. The case must be
remitted to the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) to determine
the appropriate sentence. The case must be listed for hearing at
the earliest possible date. The appellant has been in custody since
November 1981, since the date of his conviction on a life sentence
for murder, which, on any view, must be treated as unsafe and
unsatisfactory.

I agree with my noble and learned friend that the certified