Scarica linguistica inglese e più Prove d'esame in PDF di Linguistica Inglese solo su Docsity! On 17 December 2002 in the Crown Court at Nottingham before Mackay J and a jury the
appellant was convicted by a majority verdict of 10 to 2 of murder upon Count 1 of an
indictment in which he appeared charged with a number of co-defendants. On 13 January
2003 he was sentenced to life imprisonment. An alternative count of Assisting An
Offender (Count 5) remained on the file under the usual terms. He appeals against
conviction by leave of the single judge who granted limited leave (see further below).
There were two co-defendants to the charge of murder, particulars of which stated that
George Black, Mary Black and the appellant “did aid and abet, counsel and procure X to
murder Patrick George Moore” on 16 October 2001. X (aged 16) pleaded guilty to
murder on a separate indictment and was detained during Her Majesty"s Pleasure under
s.28 of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997, He was the principal prosecution witness at the
trial. George Black was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. Mary
Black was acquitted of murder.
It was the prosecution case that X was a drug runner for George Black who was a major
dealer in drugs and that he was ordered by Black to kill Patrick Moore who was an
associate drug dealer after an argument had developed between them on the previous day.
It was alleged that the appellant, who also sold drugs for Black, was an accessory to the
murder in that he had transported X and a gun with which he shot Moore to a caravan
near to Moore’s home so that X could wait for an opportunity to carry out the killing
(Count 1).
The jury were directed that the issues which they should consider in deciding whether the
appellant was an accessory to murder and whether he had aided, abetted, counselled or
procured X to murder were:
a) Did the appellant assist X to commit murder by taking him and the gun to the
caravan which was situated near to the home of the deceased?
b) Did he take X to the caravan deliberately and in the knowledge that it would assist
him to kill or cause really serious injury to the deceased or while realising that
there was a real possibility that he might do so.
At the end of the prosecution case it was submitted for the appellant that there was no
case to answer. It was put on two bases. First, that an accessory before the fact could not
be guilty if, at the time when he provided the assistance it was uncertain as to whether an
offence was going to be committed by virtue of the fact that the principal offender had not
formed his murderous intent. By contrast, as in this case, the service rendered by the
accessory may be complete at a time before the principal has formed a murderous intent,
the accessory no longer being engaged in the criminal purpose or having any interest in it.
It was submitted that it would be unfair if the act of an accessory were to become criminal
depending on the will of another person over whom he had no control.
