R v Jordan - case PDF

Preview

Summary

case ...

Description

11/3/2016

R.vJordan(JamesClinton)|WestlawUK

FOREDUCATIONALUSEONLY Status:

PositiveorNeutralJudicialTreatment

*152 James Clinton Jordan CourtofCriminalAppeal 1January1956

(1956) 40 Cr. App. R. 152 Mr.JusticeHallett,Mr.JusticeOrmerodandMr.JusticeDonovan August21,1956 FreshEvidence—Murder—MedicalEvidenceastoCauseofDeathnotAvailableatTrial—Conviction Quashed—DeathResultingfromAbnormalTreatmentofFeloniousInjury. Convictionofmurderquashedafterthecourthadheardfreshmedicalevidence,whichwasnotin anytruesenseavailableatthetrial,astothecauseofdeath,thecourtemphasisingthefactthat suchreceptionoffreshevidencewastoberegardedaswhollyexceptional Harding(1936)25Cr.App.R.190referredto. Thecourtintimatedthatitwouldnotbeassistedbyaninvestigation,throughcrossexaminationor throughcallingotherdoctors,intothecorrectnessofthetwoopinionsexpressedbythetwofresh witnessessinceitsfunctionwasnottodecidewhetherthoseopinionswerecorrect,butwhether, beingtenableopinions(astheprosecutionadmitted),theywouldhavebeenlikelytohaveaffected infavouroftheappellanttheverdictofthejury. Semble,thatdeathresultingfromanynormaltreatmentemployedtodealwithafeloniousinjury mayberegardedascausedbythefeloniousinjury,butthatthesameprincipledoesnotapplywhere thetreatmentemployedisabnormal. Appealagainstconviction. TheappellantwasconvictedatLeedsAssizesonJuly20,1956,ofmurderandwassentencedby ByrneJ.todeath. TheappellantacolouredAmericanairman,stabbedamannamedWalterBeaumont,aged27,ina caféinHull,onMay4,1956.BeaumontdiedinhospitalonMay12.Atthetrialevidencewasgiven onbehalfoftheprosecutionbythepathologistwhocarriedoutthepostmortemexaminationthat thecauseofdeathwasbronchopneumoniafollowingpenetratingabdominalinjury.*153 GeoffreyVeale ,Q.C.( R.R.RawdenSmith withhim)fortheappellant.Nocomplaintismadeofthe summingupandtherewouldnothavebeenanyappealwereitnotforthefactthatthedoctorwho treatedthedeceasedmaninhospitalgotintouchwiththeUnitedStatesAirForceauthorities, becausehetookadifferentviewastothecauseofdeathfromthatwhichwasexpressedatthe trial.Leaveissoughttocallfurtherevidencerelatingtothecauseofdeath. P.StanleyPrice ,Q.C.( J.S.Snowden withhim)fortheCrown.Inthecircumstancestheapplication forleavetocallfurtherevidenceisnotopposedbytheCrown. Thecourtgrantedtheapplication,andevidencewasgivenbyDr.KeithSimpsonandMr.Guy Blackburn,whostatedthatintheiropiniondeathhadnotbeencausedbythestabwound,butbythe http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/app/document?&suppsrguid=i0ad6ada70000015827a2ab9d5894b363&docguid=I4D8072F0E4B811DAB61499BEED25C… 1/5

11/3/2016

R.vJordan(JamesClinton)|WestlawUK

introductionofterramycinafterthedeceasedmanhadshownthathewasintoleranttoitandbythe intravenousintroductionofabnormalquantitiesofliquid.Thesewitnesseswerecrossexaminedby counselfortheprosecution,whointimatedthathehadothermedicalwitnessesavailable. HallettJ.: Thisisanexceedinglyunusualcase,anditmightfromonepointofviewbedescribedasadifficult case,butwethinkthatitcanbedealtwithwithcomparativebrevity.Wehaveconsideredthepoints thatariseandhavenodoubtaboutanyofthemanditisthedesireofthecourtthatIshoulddeliver judgmentatonce. Thefactsofthecase,sofarasIneedrefertothem,areasfollows.Theappellant,togetherwith threeothermen,allservingairmenoftheUnitedStatesForces,werechargedwiththemurderofa mannamedBeaumontastheresultofadisturbancewhicharoseinacaféatHull.Beaumontwas stabbedwithaknife.Therewasnoevidencethatanyoneoftheotherthreemenusedaknifeon Beaumontorwasactinginconcertwiththemanwhodidusetheknife,andaccordinglyByrneJ., whotriedthecase,directedtheacquittalofthosethreemen.Withregardtotheappellantitwas ultimatelyconcededbyMr.Veale,whoappearedforhiminthecourtbelowandinthis*154court, thathedidusetheknifeandstabBeaumont.Beaumontwasadmittedtohospitalverypromptlyand thewoundwasstitchedup,butnonethelesshediednotmanydaysafter.Inthosecircumstances theappellantwastriedformurder.Variousdefenceswereraised,accident,selfdefence,provocation andstabbinginthecourseofaquarrel.Onallofthosedefencesthedirectionofthelearnedjudgeis notinanywaychallengedandthejuryrejectedthem. Mr.Vealetoldus,withhisusualfrankness,thattheoriginalintentionofthedefencewasnotto lodgeanappeal,butcertaininformationreachedtheUnitedStatesauthoritiesandthedefence becameinapositiontoputforwardfurtherevidence,andinparticulartheevidenceoftwodoctors, Dr.KeithSimpsonandMr.Blackburn,whosestandingisbeyondquestion. Applicationwasmadetothecourtforleavetocallthisadditionalevidence.Itisonlyinthemost exceptionalcircumstances,andsubjecttowhatmaybedescribedasexceptionalconditions,thatthe courtiseverwillingtolistentoadditionalevidence.Therearemostobviousreasons,whichIneed notrestate,becausetheyhavebeenstatedwithauthorityonmorethanoneoccasionbefore,why suchapplicationsshouldbegrantedonlywithgreatrestraint.TherearethreecasestowhichIwill refer,andIwillrefertothemininverseorderofdate.ThelatestisSparkes( ante,p.83),where therehadbeenareferencetothecourtbytheHomeSecretaryundersection19oftheCriminal AppealAct,1907,andthatcasedecidedthattheconsiderationswhichapplytosuchreferencesare differentfromthosewhichapplytoanordinaryappeal. ThesecondcaseisM'Grath[1949]2AllE.R.495,whereitispointedoutthat,whenanappeal comesbeforethecourtinanordinarycase,theconsiderationsaredifferentfromthosewhichapply incasesreferredtobytheHomeSecretary.Theheadnotecorrectlystateswhatissaidinthe judgmentwithregardtothecasewhichcomesbeforethecourtintheordinaryway:“Thecourtwould notusurpthefunctionofthejurywhenthetrialhadbeenproperlyconducted,norwouldithear *155furtherevidenceunlessitwereshownthattheproposedwitnesshadnotbeenavailableto givenevidenceatthetrial.” Theotherrequisitetothegrantingofsuchanapplicationis,thattheadditionalevidencemustbe suchthat,intheopinionofthecourt,itprobablywouldhaveaffectedtheverdictwhichthejury returned,andinconnectionwiththesecondrequisiteitisnotirrelevantheretomentionthatthejury

http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/app/document?&suppsrguid=i0ad6ada70000015827a2ab9d5894b363&docguid=I4D8072F0E4B811DAB61499BEED25C… 2/5

11/3/2016

R.vJordan(JamesClinton)|WestlawUK

wereabsentfortwohours,thattheyreturnedforafurtherdirectionandwereabsentagain,andthat theyfinally,aftersomethreehoursofconsideration,foundtheappellantguilty,withastrong recommendationtomercy.Perhapsthatisrelevantinconsideringtheeffectthatanyfurther evidencewouldinallprobabilityhavehadonthejury'smind. [Afterreferringtothesummingupandthemedicalevidenceatthetrial,hisLordshipcontinued.] Thefurtherevidenceissaidtoshowthatdeathwasnot,tousethewordsofByrneJ.,“consequent uponthewoundinflicted.”Onthecontrary,boththedoctorscalledareofopinionthat,fromthe medicalpointofview,itcannotbedescribedascausedbythewoundatall.Whetherfromthelegal pointofviewitcouldbedescribedascausedbythewoundisamoredoubtfulquestion.Therearea numberofcasesinwhichthejudgeshavediscussedinwhatcircumstancesadeathcanberegarded astheresultofawoundwheresomethingotherthantheinflictingofthewoundhasbeenthe immediatecauseofdeath.Thecircumstancesvaryverymuch.Thejudgesineachcasehaveruledin thelightofthecircumstanceswithwhichtheyhadtodeal,andoutoffourcasesthejuryacquitted intwoandconvictedintwo.First,astotherequirementsallowingfreshevidencetobecalled;inthe presentcaseitseemscleartousthatthefreshevidencewasnotinanytruesenseavailableatthe trial.Itdidnotoccurtotheprosecution,thedefence,thejudge,orthejurythattherecouldbeany doubtbutthatthestabcauseddeath.Thetrialproceededuponthatbasis.Inthosecircumstances wethoughtitrighttotaketheviewthatthiswasacasewheretheevidencesoughttobegivenhad notbeeninanytruesenseavailableatthetrial.Thecase*156ismarkedlydistinctfromacase suchasSparkes(supra),whereDonovanJ.pointedoutthattheevidencewasavailabletothe appellantifhethoughtfittouseit. Ihavenotyetreferredtowhatisperhapsthemostimportantcasefromthepresentpointofview, Harding(1936)25Cr.App.R.190.Theheadnoteisshort:“Convictionofmurderquashedafterthe courthadheardfreshmedicalevidenceastothecauseofdeath,thecourtemphasisingthefactthat suchreceptionoffreshevidencewastoberegardedaswhollyexceptional.”IhopeIhavemadeit plainthatthiscourthaswellinmindthatsuchreceptionmustbewhollyexceptional. Astothesecondrequisite,namely,thattheevidenceproposedtobetenderedissuchthat,ifthe juryhadheardthatevidence,theymightverylikely,andindeedprobablywould,havecometoa differentverdict,wefeelthat,ifthejuryhadheardtwodoctorsofthestandingofDr.KeithSimpson andMr.Blackburngiveevidencethatintheirjudgmentdeathwasnotduetothestabwoundbutto somethingelse,thejurymightcertainlyhavehesitatedverylongbeforesayingthattheywere satisfiedthatdeathwasduetothestabwound.Thejury,ofcourse,wouldnotbeboundbymedical opinion,butflyinginthefaceofit,particularlyinacapitalcase,isathinganyjurywouldhesitate todo.WhenMr.StanleyPricewastryingtoassistthecourtbycrossexaminingthosedoctorswitha viewtoshowingthattheyweremistakenintheiropinions,andwhenhetoldusthathewasprepared totendertheevidenceofdoctorswhowould,accordingtohisinstructions,probablyexpressother opinions,wefeltboundtosaythatthequestionisnotwhetherwe,ifwewereajury,wouldhave acceptedandactedontheopinionsthosegentlemenexpressed,butwhetherthejuryinall probabilitywouldhaveallowedtheirverdicttobeaffectedbythem. ThereisonefurtheraspectthatitisimportantIshouldemphasiselestthiscaseiscitedinsome othercase.Thereweretwothingsotherthanthewoundwhichwerestatedbythesetwomedical witnessestohavebroughtaboutdeath.Thestabwoundhadpenetratedtheintestineintwoplaces, *157butitwasmainlyhealedatthetimeofdeath.Withaviewtopreventinginfectionitwas thoughtrighttoadministeranantibiotic,terramycin.

http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/app/document?&suppsrguid=i0ad6ada70000015827a2ab9d5894b363&docguid=I4D8072F0E4B811DAB61499BEED25C… 3/5

11/3/2016

R.vJordan(JamesClinton)|WestlawUK

Itwasagreedbythetwoadditionalwitnessesthatthatwasthepropercoursetotake,andaproper dosewasadministered.Somepeople,however,areintoleranttoterramycin,andBeaumontwasone ofthosepeople.Aftertheinitialdoseshedevelopeddiarrhoea,whichwasonlyproperlyattributable, intheopinionofthosedoctors,tothefactthatthepatientwasintoleranttoterramycin.Thereupon theadministrationofterramycinwasstopped,butunfortunatelytheverynextdaytheresumptionof suchadministrationwasorderedbyanotherdoctoranditwasrecommencedthefollowingday.The twodoctorsbothtakethesameviewaboutit.Dr.Simpsonsaidthattointroduceapoisonous substanceaftertheintoleranceofthepatientwasshownwaspalpablywrong.Mr.Blackburnagreed. Otherstepsweretakenwhichwerealsoregardedbythedoctorsaswrong—namely,theintravenous introductionofwhollyabnormalquantitiesofliquidfarexceedingtheoutput.Asaresultthelungs becamewaterloggedandpulmonaryoedemawasdiscovered.Mr.Blackburnsaidthathewasnot surprisedtoseethatconditionaftertheintroductionofsomuchliquid,andthatpulmonaryoedema leadstobronchopneumoniaasaninevitablesequel,anditwasfrombronchopneumoniathat Beaumontdied. Wearedisposedtoacceptitasthelawthatdeathresultingfromanynormaltreatmentemployedto dealwithafeloniousinjurymayberegardedascausedbythefeloniousinjury,butwedonotthinkit necessarytoexaminethecasesindetailortoformulatefortheassistanceofthosewhohaveto dealwithsuchmattersinthefuturethecorrecttestwhichoughttobelaiddownwithregardtowhat isnecessarytobeprovedinordertoestablishcausalconnectionbetweenthedeathandthe feloniousinjury.Itissufficienttopointoutherethatthiswasnotnormaltreatment.Notonlyone feature,buttwoseparateandindependentfeatures,oftreatmentwere,*158intheopinionofthe doctors,palpablywrongandtheseproducedthesymptomsdiscoveredatthepostmortem examinationwhichwerethedirectandimmediatecauseofdeath,namely,thepneumoniaresulting fromtheconditionofoedemawhichwasfound. Thequestiontheniswhetheritcanbesaidthat,ifthatevidencehadbeenbeforethejury,itought nottohave,andinallprobabilitywouldnothave,affectedtheirdecision.Werecognisethatthe learnedjudge,ifthismatterhadbeenbeforehim,wouldhavehadtodirectthejurycorrectlyonhow farsuchsuperveningmatterscouldberegardedasinterruptingthechainofcausation;butwefeel thatintheenditwouldhavebeenaquestionoffactforthejurydependingonwhatevidencethey acceptedascorrectandtheviewtheytookonthatevidence.Wefeelnouncertaintyatallthat, whateverdirectionhadbeengiventothejuryandhowevercorrectithadbeen,thejurywouldhave feltprecludedfromsayingthattheyweresatisfiedthatdeathwascausedbythestabwound. Forthesereasonswecometotheconclusionthattheappealmustbeallowedandtheconvictionset aside. Convictionquashed.

Representation Solicitors—Payne&Payne,Hull,fortheappellant. *159

©2016Sweet&Maxwell

24hourcustomersupport08000282200or+442036840749, [email protected] http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/app/document?&suppsrguid=i0ad6ada70000015827a2ab9d5894b363&docguid=I4D8072F0E4B811DAB61499BEED25C… 4/5

11/3/2016

R.vJordan(JamesClinton)|WestlawUK

Wewanttohearyourfeedback Sweet&MaxwellispartofThomsonReuters.©2016ThomsonReuters(Professional)UKLimited.UsageFAQ.

http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/app/document?&suppsrguid=i0ad6ada70000015827a2ab9d5894b363&docguid=I4D8072F0E4B811DAB61499BEED25C… 5/5...