Legal Research
Cases
Regina v. Randall

Regina v. Randall

Case [2003] UKHL 69

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

My Lords,

I have had the advantage of reading in draft the opinion of my noble and learned friend Lord Steyn. For the reasons he has given, with which I wholly agree, I was also of the opinion, announced at the end of the oral hearing of the appeal, that it should be dismissed.

LORD STEYN

My Lords,

The certified question of law before the House is as follows:

"Where two accused are jointly charged with a crime, and each blames the other for its commission, may one accused rely on the criminal propensity of the other?"

Since this is a position which frequently arises in criminal trials, notably in cases of homicide and other offences against the person, the point is of considerable practical importance.

The Killing.

On the evening of 8 May 2001 in Rickmansworth, Hertfordshire, Michael Barber, aged 55 years, was attacked. His assailant or assailants inflicted nine separate serious injuries to his head. He was found in an unconscious state on a footpath near the home of Susan Rowe. He never regained consciousness. On 12 May 2001 he died of the cumulative effect of his injuries.

The Trial.

In January 2002 and at the Crown Court in St Albans two men stood trial on a charge of the murder of the deceased. They were the appellant, Edward Randall (aged 30 years), and his co-accused, Nicholas Glean (aged 39 years). They had been staying at the house of Susan Rowe, Randall's aunt, some 50 metres from where the deceased was found. The deceased had called at Susan Rowe's address in an intoxicated state. There was a struggle to eject him from the premises and he staggered away. The prosecution case was that Randall and Glean, acting jointly or independently, had attacked the deceased and caused his injuries. Randall and Glean raised cut throat defences: they blamed each other for the death of the deceased. The trial lasted two weeks. On 30 January 2002 the jury returned their verdicts. They found Randall guilty of manslaughter. The judge sentenced him to 8 years imprisonment. Glean was acquitted.

The shape of the trial.

Given the fact that the issue is one of principle, and that the evidence was reviewed in detail by Kennedy LJ in the Court of Appeal, I can describe the shape of the case, so far as it is material, briefly. The deceased had made a nuisance of himself at the home of Susan Rowe. Randall and Glean were at the scene. Each had a motive for attacking the deceased. The background was explained by Susan Rowe. Her evidence is summarised in the agreed statement of facts and issues as follows:

"Susan Rowe gave evidence to the effect that the deceased had arrived at her address at around 10.45pm. [Randall] was not present but Nicholas Glean was. The deceased was visibly drunk and Susan Rowe refused him entry to her home. [Randall] arrived shortly thereafter and he asked the deceased to leave. [Randall] took hold of the…

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.

Continue reading Regina v. Randall

Details

Case: [2003] UKHL 69
Decision Date