Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
See more information ...
Click here to read the full judgment
Maybin, R. v
Smart Summary
Factual and Procedural Background
On 14 May 2017, the Appellant was attending an under-16 Gaelic Athletic Association (GAA) match and was lawfully in possession of a hurling stick. The prosecution alleged that the Appellant struck the injured party two or three times to the head with the hurling stick, causing serious head injuries and a defensive injury to the hand, both requiring hospital treatment. The alleged reason for the attack was a loss of temper after the injured party reprimanded the Appellant for using foul language in front of children. The Appellant claimed self-defence, stating that the injured party had been confrontational and had attempted to punch him, prompting an instinctive defensive strike. This defence was not raised during the police interview as the Appellant made no comment.
Following a contested trial on 23 January 2020, the Appellant was convicted by majority verdict of wounding with intent contrary to section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. The Single Judge granted leave on two grounds: the failure to direct the jury on the alternative verdict of section 20 assault and the handling of the law on self-defence. The appeal proceeded on these two grounds only.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the trial judge erred in failing to direct the jury on the alternative verdict of section 20 assault, which does not require proof of specific intent, when the indictment charged the Appellant with the section 18 offence requiring specific intent.
- Whether the trial judge correctly dealt with the law on self-defence.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The Appellant contended that the trial judge should have directed the jury that they could find him guilty of the lesser offence under section 20, which was not done, leaving the jury with the choice of convicting under section 18 or acquitting entirely.
- The Appellant maintained that he had done nothing wrong and rejected any plea to the lesser charge of section 20 both before and during the trial.
Respondent's Arguments
- The prosecution acknowledged that section 20 was a viable alternative verdict and that the Appellant’s loss of temper at the match was sufficient to meet the justice of the case for that charge.
- Prosecuting counsel admitted that intent was a core issue and a jury could have found the Appellant did not intend to inflict serious harm but had committed an unlawful assault.
- Prosecuting counsel explained that the alternative section 20 verdict was not added to the indictment because defence counsel did not seek it, given the self-defence claim.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent |
Rule or Principle Cited For |
Application by the Court |
| R v Coutts [2006] 1 WLR 2154 |
Trial judge must leave to the jury any obvious alternative offence supported by evidence, irrespective of counsel's wishes. |
The court relied on this precedent to emphasize the trial judge’s duty to leave alternative verdicts like section 20 assault to the jury, despite counsel’s agreement otherwise. |
| Von Starck v Queen [2000] 1 WLR 1270 |
Judicial responsibility to present all possible conclusions to the jury, regardless of parties' submissions. |
Supported the principle that the judge’s duty is greater than counsel’s and includes ensuring the jury considers all legally available verdicts. |
| Hobson [2009] EWCA Crim 1590 |
Importance of leaving alternative verdicts when specific intent is required for the charged offence but not for the alternative. |
Used to illustrate that failure to leave a lesser alternative verdict where intent is disputed can lead to unsafe convictions. |
| Foster [2009] EWCA Crim 2214 |
Same principle as Hobson regarding alternative verdicts and specific intent. |
Reinforced the duty of judges to leave alternatives to avoid miscarriages of justice. |
| Johnson [2013] EWCA Crim 2001 |
Confirms the obligation to leave alternative verdicts when intent is a contested issue. |
Supported the court’s view that the jury should have been allowed to consider the section 20 offence. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court analyzed the evidence and concluded it was open to the jury to find that the Appellant deliberately struck the injured party but lacked the specific intent to cause grievous bodily harm required for a section 18 conviction. The failure to leave the alternative section 20 offence, which does not require specific intent, deprived the jury of a realistic verdict option. The court emphasized that the decision to leave alternative verdicts rests with the trial judge, not counsel, citing authoritative rulings including R v Coutts and Von Starck v Queen.
The court noted that although both prosecution and defence counsel agreed not to pursue the alternative count, the trial judge had an independent and greater responsibility to ensure the jury was properly directed on all legally available verdicts supported by the evidence. The absence of the section 20 verdict presented the jury with an unjust “stark choice” between a serious conviction or acquittal, risking a miscarriage of justice. The court found that this error rendered the conviction unsafe.
Holding and Implications
The appeal is allowed and the conviction is quashed. The court held that the failure to leave the section 20 offence as an alternative verdict, which was clearly raised by the evidence, constituted a serious miscarriage of justice making the conviction unsafe. Consequently, the appeal against sentence fell with the quashed conviction.
The direct effect is that the Appellant's conviction under section 18 is overturned. The opinion does not establish new legal precedent beyond reaffirming existing principles regarding alternative verdicts and the trial judge's duty. No broader implications beyond the parties are discussed.
Click here to read the full judgment