Breadcrumbs Section. Click here to navigate to respective pages.
Chapter
Chapter
would have responded in the same way (Graham and Howe). The magistrates had focused on loss of will at the invitation of the prosecution, and this may have led them to overlook the objective elements. There was no finding that the respondent had been in fear of his life or serious injury at the moment he drove off, or that he continued to be frightened during the two miles he drove before being stopped. The only finding was that the respondent feared for his life when still in the flat. The magistrates did not consider whether there was good cause for the fear. Had they done so, it would have been impossible to conclude that the other man drawing near and undoing the respondent’s shirt buttons could provide cause for such fear. Neither did the other man’s attempts to pull the respondent from his car, which were accompanied by unspecified abuse but no actual blows. The magistrates had also erred in deciding that it was not unreasonable for the respondent to drive two miles as it would have been difficult for him to stop. They should have considered whether it was necessary for him to continue driving. Pittaway: The magistrates had again applied a subjective test, concerning themselves with the effect on the respondent of a man behaving violently towards her. They had not found that the threats amounted to threats of death or serious injury. They were wrong to apply a subjective test, and also wrong in considering whether the distance driven was reasonable, rather then necessary. Neither did they consider the significance of the respondent sitting in her car for five minutes, unpursued by the appellant, before driving off. They should have considered whether there was good cause for her to fear, which there was not. R v Pommell [1995] 2 Cr App R 607 (CA)
DOI link for would have responded in the same way (Graham and Howe). The magistrates had focused on loss of will at the invitation of the prosecution, and this may have led them to overlook the objective elements. There was no finding that the respondent had been in fear of his life or serious injury at the moment he drove off, or that he continued to be frightened during the two miles he drove before being stopped. The only finding was that the respondent feared for his life when still in the flat. The magistrates did not consider whether there was good cause for the fear. Had they done so, it would have been impossible to conclude that the other man drawing near and undoing the respondent’s shirt buttons could provide cause for such fear. Neither did the other man’s attempts to pull the respondent from his car, which were accompanied by unspecified abuse but no actual blows. The magistrates had also erred in deciding that it was not unreasonable for the respondent to drive two miles as it would have been difficult for him to stop. They should have considered whether it was necessary for him to continue driving. Pittaway: The magistrates had again applied a subjective test, concerning themselves with the effect on the respondent of a man behaving violently towards her. They had not found that the threats amounted to threats of death or serious injury. They were wrong to apply a subjective test, and also wrong in considering whether the distance driven was reasonable, rather then necessary. Neither did they consider the significance of the respondent sitting in her car for five minutes, unpursued by the appellant, before driving off. They should have considered whether there was good cause for her to fear, which there was not. R v Pommell [1995] 2 Cr App R 607 (CA)
would have responded in the same way (Graham and Howe). The magistrates had focused on loss of will at the invitation of the prosecution, and this may have led them to overlook the objective elements. There was no finding that the respondent had been in fear of his life or serious injury at the moment he drove off, or that he continued to be frightened during the two miles he drove before being stopped. The only finding was that the respondent feared for his life when still in the flat. The magistrates did not consider whether there was good cause for the fear. Had they done so, it would have been impossible to conclude that the other man drawing near and undoing the respondent’s shirt buttons could provide cause for such fear. Neither did the other man’s attempts to pull the respondent from his car, which were accompanied by unspecified abuse but no actual blows. The magistrates had also erred in deciding that it was not unreasonable for the respondent to drive two miles as it would have been difficult for him to stop. They should have considered whether it was necessary for him to continue driving. Pittaway: The magistrates had again applied a subjective test, concerning themselves with the effect on the respondent of a man behaving violently towards her. They had not found that the threats amounted to threats of death or serious injury. They were wrong to apply a subjective test, and also wrong in considering whether the distance driven was reasonable, rather then necessary. Neither did they consider the significance of the respondent sitting in her car for five minutes, unpursued by the appellant, before driving off. They should have considered whether there was good cause for her to fear, which there was not. R v Pommell [1995] 2 Cr App R 607 (CA)
ABSTRACT
Kennedy LJ: ... [T]he prosecution case was that at about 8 am on 4 June 1993 police officers entered the appellant’s home to execute a search warrant. He was found lying in bed with a loaded gun in his right hand. He was asked if the gun was his and he replied, ‘I took it off a geezer who was going to do some people some damage with it’. In the same bedroom police officers found a brown holdall containing ammunition. The appellant was arrested and interviewed. When interviewed he was asked to explain his possession of the gun, and he said:
Last night someone come round to see me, this guy by the name of Erroll, and he had it with him with the intention to go and shoot some people because they had killed his friend and he wanted to kill their girlfriends and relatives and kids, and I persuade him, I took it off him and told him that it’s not right to do that.
