19906815

CASE NOTE

Case Name: Stone [Appellant] v. Bolton [Respondent]

Court Name: House of Lords

Decision Date: 1951

Citation: [1951] 1 All ER 1078

Introduction: Briefly identify the case by party name and citation, the nature of the legal issue or issues and perhaps suggest why this case may be of interest. Stone (P) was struck in the head by a ball struck from the cricket field adjacent to her home. Stone sued Bolton (D), the owner of the cricket field for public nuisance and common law negligence on the grounds that the fence was not high enough to prevent balls leaving the field. Bolton claimed that 6-10 balls escaped the field in the previous 30 years and it was therefore an unforeseeable risk. The Lords believed there was policy implications in terms of the message of what liability would have meant in creating restrictions in what we can do in our everyday lives in an urbanised modern society.

Procedural History: Is it an appeal from a first instance decision or have there been a series of appeals? If the latter it might be useful to discuss the reasoning in previous decisions. Stone v. Bolton, [1949] 1 All ER 237 is the court of first instance. Held by Oliver J that there was no evidence of negligence and a single act of hitting a cricket ball onto a road was too isolated a happening to amount to a nuisance. In [1949] 2 All ER 851 the claimant's appeal dismissed nuisance on the same grounds as Oliver J. However Somervell LJ, dissenting, held that the claimant had failed to establish negligence. [1951] AC 850 The House of Lords (Lord Porter, Lord Normand, Lord Oaksey, Lord Reid and Lord Radcliffe) unanimously found that there was no negligence. The key issue remaining regarded assumption of risk which was considered (just) too remote for the reasonable person, in spite of the observation by Lord Porter that hitting a ball out of the ground was an objective of the game, "and indeed, one which the batsman would wish to bring about".

Facts: What are the circumstances in which the dispute arose? Think about what is relevant to the law. You only need to provide enough factual information to explain how the legal issues arose. Identify the parties clearly and be consistent. For example avoid referring to the applicant, plaintiff, aggrieved party or party by name interchangeably. Stone sued Bolton (D), the owner of the cricket field for public nuisance and common law negligence on the grounds that the fence was not high enough to prevent balls leaving the field. Bolton claimed that 6-10 balls escaped the field in the previous 30 years and it was therefore an unforeseeable risk.

1

19906815

Issues: What is the applicable law, or what has been argued to be the applicable law? Is the dispute about defining specific circumstances when a particular legal principle may be relevant? For example, whether in the circumstances has a duty of care arisen and if there has been a breach of the duty of care; or whether a particular term in a contract be interpreted in a specific way and if that term has been breached based on that interpretation.

1. Whether the issue of intention to kill was improperly withdrawn from the jury? 2. Whether the loss of self-control as a partial defence succeeds for the purposes of Section

116 (b) of the Criminal Code of Belize? 3. Whether the appellant could not be convicted of manslaughter pursuant to 116(1) of the

Criminal Code if he intended to kill the victim contrary to Section 119(a) and (b) of the Criminal Code Cap 101 of Belize?

4. Whether the appellant’s statement and police interview, under caution, is admissible?

Judgement: What is the outcome of the case? What was the law the judge or judges applied? What is the reasoning of the judge or judges that has led to that outcome? The appeal was allowed, a verdict of manslaughter substituted and the issue of sentencing remitted to the Court of Appeal.

2

19906815

Analysis: Is the decision supported by the reasoning? If it is a split decision (there is a dissenting judgment) is the majority's approach convincing? If the case is the outcome of a series of appeals how does the decision reconcile or justify earlier decisions? How has the case been treated subsequently? Are there any social implications? Will this affect business practice?

1. Withdrawing the issue of intention to kill from the jury:Withdrawing the issue of intention imputes a bias, Mueller, Christopher B. Laird C. Kirkpatrick (2009). Evidence; 4th ed. pp. 133–34 set out the following: “With respect to the critical facts of the case—whether the crime charged was committed and whether the defendant was the person who committed the crime—the state has the entire burden of proof. With respect to the critical facts of the case, the defendant does not have any burden of proof whatsoever. The defendant does not have to testify, call witnesses or present any other evidence, and if the defendant elects not to testify or present evidence, this decision cannot be used against them. The jury or judge is not to draw any negative inferences from the fact the defendant has been charged with a crime and is present in court and represented by an attorney. They must decide the case solely on evidence presented during the trial.” This was further reinforced by what was famously referred to as the “golden thread” in the criminal law by Lord Sankey LC“……Throughout the web of the English criminal law one golden thread is always to be seen—that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the prisoner's guilt subject to what I have already said as to the defense of insanity and subject also to any statutory exception...”

2. Misdirecting the Jury on the partial defence of loss of self-control:With reference to Section 116 (b) of the Criminal Code of Belize Lord Bingham of Cornhill offered the following as guidance: Was there evidence of a situation in which the appellant was justified in causing some harm to the deceased? Was there evidence that the appellant had caused harm in excess of the harm he was justified in causing? Was there evidence that the appellant was acting from terror of immediate death or grievous harm? Was there evidence that such terror deprived the appellant for the time being of the power of self-control?

3. The requirements for manslaughter direction:(a) …was deprived of the power of self-control by such extreme provocation given by the other person as is mentioned in section 120, or (b) he was justified in causing some harm to the other person, and that in causing harm in excess of the harm which he was justified in causing he acted from such terror of immediate death or grievous harm as in fact deprived him, for the time being, of the power of self-control.

4. The admission of evidence:Guidance is taken from R v Sharp [1988] 1 All ER 65 where the jury must be given comprehensible directions. They could not make sense of part only of the statement. The whole evidence should be considered as evidence, and the judge could allow the jurors to attach different weights to different parts, and he could point out the failure of the defendant to submit to cross examination. 

3

19906815

Summary: What can you say overall about the importance of the case? In order to complete the case note you may have to do further research. How would you familiarise yourself with the law? How would you determine whether the case is important or not?

1. The day after the defendant arrest a statement was volunteered to the police. The statement admitted his presence in the area, an argument with the decease, an assault on the appellant by the deceased, a struggle, retreat by the defendant but providing an explanation for the use of a piece of wood to defend himself. He did not give evidence at trial. His statement was not adduced by the prosecution and given only a passing remark by the defence. The judge did not direct the jury to consider the evidence given the previous actions see also R v Sharp [2008] WRL 7.

2. The direction regarding the actions of a reasonable man runs counter to section 119(b) of the Criminal Code of Belize. Members are of the view that the evidence presented to show the appellant was “acting from terror of immediate death or grievous harm and that the terror deprived the appellant of self-control” as per the direction of Lord Bingham of Cornhill in Cleon Smith v The Queen (No 59 of 2000) is of more import. Further support is provided by Norman Shaw v The Queen (No 58 of 2000). Both cases were on appeal to the Judicial Committee from Belize.

4

19906815

Loosing Arguments:

1. Members agreed that the trial judge “summed up the facts with regard to it (intention) in detail” and at no time was the issue of intention withdrawn from the jury. The jury was instructed that “it was one of the five elements about which they must be sure before they could convict the appellant of murder.” In these circumstances there was no assumption of intent by the jury based on misdirection.

2. The Board has concluded that when the direction is read as a whole there is no misdirection. There is evidence that raises a reasonable doubt as to extreme provocation and loss of self-control resulting in a justified reaction.

“Obiter Dicta”: In the opinion of the Board, as a matter of fairness, the prosecution should have adduced them in evidence.

5

19906815

PLAGIARISM POLICY

Academic misconduct, which includes cheating, fabrication, plagiarism, interference, violation of course rules and facilitating academic dishonesty, will not be tolerated.

Note that most forms of academic misconduct, including plagiarism and cheating, do not require intent or knowledge. A student is guilty of plagiarism, for example, if the student “adopts[s] or reproduces[s] ideas, words, or statements of another person without an appropriate acknowledgement, “regardless of whether she intended to do so or knew she was doing so.

Note:

You may not seek the editorial assistance of other students, family members, friends or anyone else.

You may not look at, exchange, or otherwise share (orally or in writing) any other individual’s written work related to the assignment.

You may not seek or receive assistance from others in the legal community.

Honour Code Declaration

I, Jepter Lorde, hereby state that this paper is my own work in accordance with the University’s rules and policies related to academic integrity.

6