- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Haydon v Rex
Factual and Procedural Background
The Appellant was indicted for an offence contrary to section 2 of the Explosive Substances Act 1883. He was tried before Judge Johnson and a jury at The Court, convicted after a ten-day trial and sentenced to an extended determinate term of 8 years 6 months (custodial term 4 years 6 months plus an extension period of 4 years). The Appellant obtained leave to appeal against conviction on three grounds.
Material facts, many agreed or uncontested, were that the Appellant lived with his mother in The Family Home, used a bedroom as a makeshift laboratory and conducted experiments with chemicals. On the date in question there was an explosion in that room causing the Appellant serious injuries and damage to the house. Emergency services attended; the scene contained chemicals, laboratory equipment and devices; explosive substances were identified and neutralised by an Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) team. Samples taken contained primary high explosives (including TATP and HMTD) and other explosive precursors. The Appellant made admissions in interview and on hospital occasions about mixing chemicals and conducting experiments; his electronic devices contained downloaded guides and search history relevant to explosives; notes, diagrams and photographs of experiments were recovered. Experts gave evidence on the sensitivity and potential harmfulness of the substances found. The prosecution alleged the Appellant caused an explosion by an IED that was of a nature likely to endanger life or cause serious injury to property.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the trial judge misdirected the jury on the meaning of "likely" in section 2 of the 1883 Act (i.e. whether "likely" requires probability greater than 50% or a lower "could well happen"/real likelihood standard).
- Whether the judge erred in refusing a defence application to exclude certain evidence and photographs as unfairly prejudicial under section 78 of PACE 1984.
- Whether the judge misdirected the jury on the mental element (mens rea) of the section 2 offence—specifically whether the mental element requires foresight of an explosion of a particular magnitude likely to endanger life or cause serious injury to property, or whether foresight of an explosion (without foresight of its magnitude) suffices.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- Ground 1: The word "likely" should be given its natural meaning as a probability exceeding 50%; the judge should have directed the jury accordingly (relying in particular on Re Harris Simons Construction Ltd [1989] 1 WLR 368).
- Ground 2: The judge wrongly admitted photographs and items from the scene which were unfairly prejudicial and should have been excluded under section 78 PACE 1984.
- Ground 3: The mens rea for section 2 requires foresight of the magnitude/extent of the explosion; the prosecution must prove that the Appellant intended or foresaw an explosion of a degree that was itself likely to endanger life or cause serious injury to property.
Respondent's Arguments
- Ground 1: Meaning of "likely" is context-dependent; in the context of the 1883 Act the appropriate meaning is a "real likelihood" or "could well happen" given the policy purpose and the dangerousness of explosives.
- Ground 2: The disputed material was admissible to demonstrate the Appellant's knowledge, expertise and the extent of his activities; relevance outweighed prejudicial effect and, in any event, the defence theory (chaotic amateur) would permit similar material to be admitted to rebut that impression.
- Ground 3: The mens rea requirement is satisfied by intention to cause an explosion or foresight of the possibility of an explosion; no requirement to foresee the degree of harm resulting.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Re Harris Simons Construction Ltd [1989] 1 WLR 368 | Illustration (Hoffman J): example suggesting "likely" may be used to mean probability >50% in ordinary usage. | Noted as relied on by the defence for a >50% meaning; the court rejected treating that as the universal meaning and favoured a context-dependent approach. |
| Re H (Minors)(Sexual Abuse: Standard of Proof) [1996] AC 563 | Lord Nicholls: "likely" can mean a real possibility/a risk that ought not to be ignored; its meaning depends on context and purpose of the statute. | Relied upon to support that "likely" may mean a "real possibility" in statutory contexts where protection is the purpose; applied to construing section 2 of the 1883 Act. |
| Cream Holdings Ltd and others v Banerjee and another [2004] UKHL 44 | Lord Nicholls: "likely" has several shades of meaning and depends on context; may range from "more likely than not" to "may well". | Used to support the court's context-specific approach to the meaning of "likely". |
| R v Neil Whitehouse [2000] Crim.L.R.172 | Applied Re H to a statutory provision criminalising conduct "likely to endanger" where consequences are potentially disastrous; construed "likely" as a "real risk" that should not be ignored. | Relied on as a closely analogous authority supporting a lower threshold than >50% in endangerment-type offences. |
| Chief Constable of Lancashire v Potter [2003] EWHC 2272 | Observes that meaning depends on statutory context; in less risky contexts it may be appropriate to treat "likely" as "more probable than not". | Referred to as illustrating that context may produce different meanings; did not displace the court's conclusion for the present, higher-risk context. |
| SCA Packaging Ltd v Boyle [2009] UKHL 37 | House of Lords: "likely" in certain medical/predictive contexts means "could well happen" rather than "more likely than not". | Adopted as authority for the proposition that predictive/statutory contexts may require the "could well happen" meaning; cited in support of the court's construction. |
| Boyle v SCA Packaging Limited [2009] NI 317 | Illustration that predictions differ from past findings and "likely" can mean "could well happen" in that statutory context. | Referred to by analogy when discussing the interpretative approach to "likely". |
| R v Marcus [2013] NICA 60 | Held that in section 2 ESD Act cases "likely" is to be read as "could well cause" and focuses on the potential of the explosion. | Followed and relied upon; the judge treated Marcus as directly instructive and applied the "could well" test to section 2 in the present case. |
| R v Christine Connor [2021] NICA 2 | Applied the "could well happen" test for section 2 offences; emphasised potential of devices rather than actual effects. | Noted as following Marcus and supporting the "could well" approach to the nature of explosions in section 2 cases. |
| R v Paul Campbell [2022] NICA 42 | Affirmed that the section 2 inquiry focuses on the nature/capacity of the explosion and whether it "could well" have caused endangerment. | Cited with approval; used to support that potential capacity, not actual consequences, determines the section 2 question. |
| R v Thacker (Edward) [2021] EWCA Crim 97 | Noted observations on whether "likely" can alter with context and that low degree of likelihood might be justifiable for inherently dangerous activities; uniform international interpretation issues addressed. | Mentioned; the court recorded those observations but treated them as not necessary to decide the present appeal. |
| G [2003] UKHL 50 | On recklessness: a person is reckless if aware of a risk and it is unreasonable in the circumstances to take that risk. | Considered in the mens rea discussion as part of authorities on recklessness and "malice". |
| Cunningham [1957] 2 QB 396 | Held "malice" requires intent to do the particular kind of harm or recklessness in foreseeing that particular kind of harm and taking the risk. | Referred to in assessing the mens rea of offences and considered in relation to section 2 mens rea arguments. |
| Mowatt [1968] 1 QB 421 | "Maliciously" imports awareness that the act may have the consequence of causing some physical harm, not necessarily the precise or greater harm that occurred. | Relied on to support that foresight of the precise degree of resulting harm is not required for offences framed with "maliciously". |
| R v Savage, DPP v Parmenter [1992] 1 AC 699 | Approved Mowatt: for certain offences the mens rea required is that for assault; degree of harm foreseen is not required. | Used to bolster the conclusion that mens rea for section 2 need not include foresight of particular degree of resulting harm. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court considered each ground in turn.
On Ground 1 (meaning of "likely"): the court examined authorities showing "likely" is variable and context-dependent. Given the statutory purpose of section 2 (protecting the public against explosions) and the inherent dangerousness and unpredictability of explosive substances, the court held Parliament could not have intended "likely" to require probability greater than 50%. The court agreed with the trial judge that in the context of section 2 "likely" means a real likelihood or that the explosion "could well" cause danger to life or serious damage to property. The judge's jury direction to that effect was held to be correct.
On Ground 2 (admissibility): the court reviewed the contested material (photographs, devices and diagrams found at the scene, expert report) and agreed with the trial judge that it was relevant to the Appellant's knowledge, know-how and level of expertise and therefore probative of whether the event was accidental, unlawful or malicious. The court rejected the submission that the material was unfairly prejudicial under section 78 PACE 1984, noting also that the defence theory (chaotic amateur) would have made some of the material admissible to rebut a false impression under section 101(1)(f) Criminal Justice Act 2003.
On Ground 3 (mens rea): the court analyzed authority on "malice" and recklessness (including Cunningham, Mowatt, Savage/Parmenter, G and related cases). It concluded that for a section 2 offence the mental element is confined to intention to cause an explosion or foresight that an explosion might be caused and continuing to take the risk. There is no requirement to foresee the particular magnitude or degree of resulting harm; the nature/magnitude of the explosion is an objective question for the jury.
Holding and Implications
DISMISSED. The appeal against conviction is dismissed.
Direct effect: the Appellant's conviction and sentence were upheld. The court affirmed that (1) "likely" in section 2 is properly construed in context as "could well" or a real likelihood given the protective purpose of the statute; (2) the contested scene evidence was admissible to demonstrate knowledge and expertise and was not unfairly prejudicial; and (3) the mens rea for section 2 requires intention to cause an explosion or foresight of the possibility of an explosion, not foresight of the particular magnitude of resulting harm. The opinion does not purport to create a new broad precedent beyond applying and endorsing the context-dependent approach to the meaning of "likely" and the established authorities on "malice" and recklessness; its holdings are applied to the facts of this case.
Alert