Parliamentary
Archives,
HL/PO/JU/18/251
Regina v. Savage (Appellant) (On Appeal from the Court of
Appeal (Criminal Division))
JUDGMENT
Die Jovis 7° Novembris 1991
Upon Report from the Appellate Committee to
whom was
referred the Cause Regina against Savage, That the
Committee
had heard Counsel as well on Tuesday the 2nd as on
Wednesday
the 3rd and Thursday the 4th days of July last, upon
the
Petition and Appeal of Susan Savage of 33 Bamburgh
Parade,
Spennymoor, County Durham, 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
28th
day of November 1990, 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; as upon
the
case of the Director of Public Prosecutions (on behalf of
Her
Majesty) lodged in answer 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 28th day of
November 1990
complained of in the said Appeal be, and the same is
hereby,
Affirmed and that the said Petition and Appeal be,
and the
same is hereby, dismissed this House.
Cler: Parliamentor:
Judgment: 7 November 1991
HOUSE OF LORDS
REGINA
v.
SAVAGE
(APPELLANT)
(ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL
DIVISION))
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC
PROSECUTIONS
(APPELLANT)
v.
PARMENTER
(RESPONDENT)
(ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL
DIVISION))
Lord Keith of
Kinkel
Lord Brandon of Oakbrook
Lord Ackner
Lord Jauncey of
Tullichettle
Lord Lowry
LORD KEITH OF KINKEL
My Lords,
I have had the opportunity of
considering in draft the
speech to be delivered by my noble and
learned friend, Lord
Ackner. I agree with it, and for the reasons
he gives would
dismiss the appeal in Savage's case and
allow that in Parmenter's
case to the extent which he
proposes.
LORD BRANDON OF OAKBROOK
My Lords,
For the reasons given in the
speech of my noble and learned
friend. Lord Ackner, I would
dismiss the appeal in Savage's case
and allow the appeal in
Parmenter's case but only to the extent
indicated by him.
LORD ACKNER
My Lords,
These two appeals have been heard
together, because they
each raise the issue of the mental element
which the prosecution
have to establish in relation to offences
under two sections of the
Offences Against the Person Act 1861 24
& 25 Vict. c. 100 (the
"Act") viz. section 20,
unlawfully and maliciously wounding or
inflicting grievous bodily
harm and section 47, assault occasioning
actual bodily harm.
Reg. v. Savage;
The facts and the…
Continue reading R v Savage
Sign in free to access the full text
- Case
- [1991] UKHL 15
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
AI summary not yet generated for this case.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.