REGINA v Alden

Factual and Procedural Background

On 12th November 1999, near a small car park on the way to the accommodation block at Picton Barracks, Bulford, two appellants, both intoxicated, were involved in an altercation with Lance Corporal Annis. Annis had instructed the appellants to go to bed, which Jones took exception to, becoming aggressive. Alden allegedly encouraged Jones to attack Annis. The initial pushing and shoving did not result in charges. Subsequently, Jones pursued Annis, tackled him to the ground outside Block 31, and kicked him while wearing Army boots. Alden struck Annis in the face after Jones' attack ended. Annis suffered serious injuries including broken ribs and a punctured lung, requiring intensive care.

Both appellants were found guilty of causing grievous bodily harm with intent at a General Court-Martial on 13th June 2000 before Assistant Judge Advocate General Woollam. Alden was sentenced to two years' detention and dismissal from the services; Jones received three years' detention and dismissal. Petitions to the reviewing authority were refused. The appellants appealed against conviction, and Jones renewed an application for leave to appeal against sentence after refusal by the Single Judge.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the summing-up regarding joint enterprise and the mental element for the offence was adequate and correctly directed the tribunal.
2. Whether the failure to challenge the admissibility of a handwritten unit statement by Alden constituted incompetent advocacy rendering the verdict unsafe.
3. Whether the summing-up adequately addressed the effect of alcohol consumption on the appellants' intent, specifically regarding the necessity of a two-part direction as per R v Sheehan & Moore.
4. Whether the sentence of three years' detention for Jones was manifestly excessive.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant Alden's Arguments

• The summing-up inadequately addressed the mental element of joint enterprise, particularly failing to clarify the requirement of intention to assist the principal offender.
• The directions conflated "egging on" with "joining in" the attack, potentially misleading the tribunal regarding Alden's liability.
• The summing-up did not sufficiently address whether Jones' kick was within the scope of the joint enterprise.
• The solicitor advocate's failure to object to the admissibility of Alden's handwritten unit statement was a serious error, likely prejudicing the defence and rendering the conviction unsafe.

Appellant Jones's Arguments

• The summing-up failed to properly instruct the tribunal on the effect of alcohol on intent, omitting the full two-part direction required by R v Sheehan & Moore.
• The sentence of three years was excessive given the circumstances and comparative case law, notably Attorney-General's Reference No 33 of 1997.

Prosecution's Arguments

• The summing-up as a whole was appropriate and correctly directed the tribunal on joint enterprise and mental elements.
• The decision not to challenge the unit statement's admissibility was not manifestly unreasonable or incompetent.
• The direction given regarding alcohol and intent was suitable given the evidence and the absence of any claim that alcohol prevented the formation of specific intent.
• The sentence imposed on Jones was not manifestly excessive considering the severity of the attack and injuries caused.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court carefully reviewed the summing-up directions on joint enterprise, considering passages that distinguished between "egging on" and physically joining the attack. It concluded these directions were appropriate and adequately conveyed the mental element required for liability, including the necessity of intention to assist the principal offender. The court rejected the criticism that the directions were misleading or inadequate.

Regarding the alleged incompetence of Alden's advocate for failing to challenge the admissibility of the handwritten unit statement, the court examined the content of the statement and found it consistent with Alden's defence of self-defence. The court held that even if instructions had not been sought, the decision not to object was not so unreasonable or incompetent as to render the conviction unsafe. The statement's admission did not prejudice the defence irreparably.

On the issue of alcohol and intent, the court analyzed the evidence of intoxication and the directions given. It found no factual basis requiring the full two-part direction prescribed in R v Sheehan & Moore. The court emphasized that such directions depend on whether drunkenness affects the defendant's ability to form specific intent, which was not claimed here. The direction given—that drunken intent is still intent—was appropriate and consistent with relevant authorities, including R v McKnight and Sooklal.

Finally, the court considered the sentence for Jones, noting the serious nature of the offence, the use of Army boots, the severity of the injuries, and the absence of provocation. It found the sentence of three years' detention was not manifestly excessive, aligning with comparable case law.

Holding and Implications

The court DISMISSED the appeals against conviction, affirming the adequacy of the summing-up on joint enterprise and alcohol-related intent, and rejecting claims of incompetent advocacy affecting the verdict's safety.

The court also REFUSED the renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence on behalf of the appellant Jones, holding the sentence appropriate given the circumstances.

The decision directly upholds the convictions and sentences of the appellants without setting new precedent or certifying any question of public or general importance.