R. v. Jones, (2006) 349 N.R. 201 (HL)

• Case Date: March 29, 2006
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2006), 349 N.R. 201 (HL)

R. v. Jones (2006), 349 N.R. 201 (HL)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2006] N.R. TBEd. MY.031

R v. Jones (appellant) (On appeal from the Court of Appeal (Cri­minal Division)) (for­merly R v. J. (ap­pel­lant))

R v. Milling (appellant) (On appeal from the Court of Appeal (Cri­minal Division)) (for­merly R v. M (ap­pel­lant))

R v. Olditch (appellant) (On appeal from the Court of Appeal (Cri­minal Division)) (for­merly R v. O (ap­pel­lant))

R v. Pritchard (appellant) (On appeal from the Court of Appeal (Cri­minal Division)) (formerly R v. P (ap­pel­lant))

R v. Richards (appellant) (On appeal from the Court of Appeal (Cri­minal Division)) (formerly R v. R (ap­pel­lant)) (Conjoined appeals)

Ayliffe and others (appellants) v. Director of Public Prosecutions (respon­dent) (Crimi­nal appeal from Her Majesty's High Court of Justice)

Swain (appellant) v. Director of Public Prosecutions (respon­dent) (Criminal appeal from Her Majesty's High Court of Justice)

([2006] UKHL 16)

Indexed As: R. v. Jones

House of Lords

London, England

Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Lord Carswell and Lord Mance

March 29, 2006.

Summary:

The accused were charged with several crim­inal offences after they trespassed and damaged military property in an effort to impede, obstruct or disrupt the commission of a crime (i.e., the international crime of aggression arising from the United King­dom's preparation for the war in Iraq). The accused argued that the defence of using rea­sonable force under s. 3 of the Criminal Law Act (i.e., the defence of justification) was available to them. An issue arose as to whether the crime of aggression, if estab­lished in customary international law, was a crime that was recognised by or that formed part of the domestic criminal law of England and Wales such as to constitute a "crime" within the meaning of s. 3.

The House of Lords held that the word "crime" in s. 3 meant domestic law, and the crime of aggression, not having been specifi­cally adopted by domestic statute, was not part of the domestic law. There­fore the crime of aggression was not capable of being a "crime" within the mea­ning of s. 3.

Criminal Law - Topic 232

General principles - Statutory defences or exceptions - Justification of force to pre­vent crime - The accused were charged with offences after they tres­passed and damaged military property to protest the United Kingdom's commis­sion of the in­ter­national crime of aggres­sion in prepar­ing for war in Iraq - The accused sought to rely on the defence of using reasonable force under s. 3 of the Criminal Law Act, 1967 (i.e., the defence of justification) - The House of Lords held the crime of ag­gres­sion was not capable of being a "crime" within the meaning of s. 3 because the word "crime" in s. 3 meant a crime in the domestic law - The court held that cus­tomary international law recognized a crime of aggression and that such crimes could be, but were not automatically as­similated into the domestic criminal law of England and Wales, without en­actment of a domestic statute - The crime of aggres­sion had, therefore, not become a domestic crime - The court opined, that even if the crime of aggression had become a crime in domestic law, s. 3 would not give rise to a defence because this type of criminal self-help could not be considered reasonable with­in the mea­ning of s. 3, however honest the ac­cused's intentions - See paragraphs 1 to 106.

International Law - Topic 5

General - Incorporation into domestic law (incl. customary international law) - [See Criminal Law - Topic 232 ].

Words and Phrases

Crime - The House of Lords discussed whether the crime of aggression under cus­to­mary international law constituted a "crime" for purposes of s. 3 of the Crimi­nal Law Act, 1967 (U.K.) - See para­graphs 1 to 106.

Cases Noticed:

Triquet v. Bath (1764), 3 Burr. 1478, refd to. [para. 11].

Brunswick (Duke) v. King of Hanover (1844), 6 Beav. 1, refd to. [para. 11].

Austria (Emperor) v. Day (1861), 2 Giff. 628, refd to. [para. 11].

Chung Chi Cheung v. R., [1939] A.C. 160 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 11].

Trendtex Trading Corp. v. Central Bank of Nigeria, [1977] Q.B. 529 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 11, 57].

Rayner (J.H.) (Mincing Lane) Ltd. v. United Kingdom (Department of Trade and Industry), [1989] Ch. 72; [1990] 2 A.C. 418, refd to. [para. 11].

Nicaragua v. United States of America, [1986] I.C.J. Reports 14 (Int. C.J.), refd to. [para. 18].

Viveash v. Becker (1814), 3 M. & S. 284, refd to. [para. 21].

Novello v. Toogood (1823), 1 B. & C. 554, refd to. [para. 21].

Taylor v. Best (1854), 14 C.B. 487, refd to. [para. 21].

Magdalena Steam Navigation Co. v. Mar­tin (1959), 2 E1 and E1 94, refd to. [para. 21].

Piracy Jure Gentium, Re, [1934] A.C. 586 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 21].

Sandercock and others, Re (1945), 13 I.L.R. 297, refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. Keyn (1876), 2 Ex. D. 63, refd to. [para. 23].

R. v. Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendi­ary Magistrate; Ex parte Pinochet Ugarte (No. 3), [2000] 1 A.C. 147, refd to. [para. 23].

Hutchinson v. Newbury Magistrates' Court (2000), 122 I.L.R. 499, refd to. [paras. 23, 90].

Nulyarimma v. Thompson (1999), 120 I.L.R. 353, refd to. [para. 23].

Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain et al. (2004), 542 U.S. 692; 159 L. Ed.2d 718 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 23].

Swales v. Cox, [1981] Q.B. 849, refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Renouf, [1986] 1 W.L.R. 522, refd to. [para. 25].

R. (Rottman) v. Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, [2002] UKHL 20; [2002] 2 A.C. 692, refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. Knuller (Publishing, Printing and Promotions) Ltd., [1973] A.C. 435, refd to. [para. 28].

Chandler v. Director of Public Prosecu­tions, [1964] A.C. 763 (H.L.), refd to. [paras. 30, 65].

Council of Civil Service Unions et al., Re, [1985] A.C. 374; 62 N.R. 336 (H.L.), refd to. [paras. 30, 65].

Lord Advocate's Reference No. 1 of 2000, 2001 JC 143, refd to. [paras. 30, 86].

R. (Marchiori) v. Environmental Agency, [2002] E.W.C.A. Civ. 03; [2002] EuLR 225, refd to. [para. 30].

Buttes Gas and Oil Co. v. Hammer (No. 3), [1982] A.C. 888 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 30].

Westland Helicopters Ltd. v. Arab Or­gani­sation for Industrialisation, [1995] Q.B. 282, refd to. [para. 30].

R. (on the application of Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament) v. Prime Minis­ter of the United Kingdom, [2002] E.W.H.C. 2777; [2003] 3 L.R.C. 335, refd to. [para. 30].

Underhill v. Hernandez (1897), 168 U.S. 250 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 30].

Oppenheimer v. Cattermole, [1976] A.C. 249 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 30].

Kuwait Airways Corp. v. Iraqi Airways Co. et al., [2002] 2 A.C. 883; 291 N.R. 1; [2002] UKHL 19, refd to. [paras. 30, 57, 100].

R. v. H, [2004] N.R. Uned. 33; [2004] 2 A.C. 134; [2004] UKHL 3, refd to. [para. 31].

Ayliffe v. Director of Public Prosecu­tions, [2006] Q.B. 227, refd to. [para. 50].

Piracy Jure Gentium, Re, [1934] A.C. 586 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 58].

Shaw v. Director of Public Prosecutions, [1962] A.C. 220 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 60].

Knuller (Publishing, Printing and Promo­tions) Ltd. v. Director of Public Pros­ecutions, [1973] A.C. 435 (H.L.), refd to. [paras. 61, 102].

M. v. Home Office - see M., Re.

M., Re, [1994] 1 A.C. 377; 154 N.R. 358 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 65].

Matthews v. United Kingdom (Ministry of Defence), [2003] N.R. Uned. 82; [2003] 1 A.C. 1163; [2003] UKHL 4, refd to. [para. 67].

Northern Ireland (Attorney General) v. Gallagher, [1963] A.C. 349 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 69].

R. v. Baker and Wilkins, [1997] Crim. L.R. 497 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 72].

Southwark London Borough Council v. Williams, [1971] Ch. 734 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 78].

Burmah Oil Co. et al. v. Lord Advocate, [1965] A.C. 75 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 80].

R. v. Chief Constable of Sussex; Ex parte International Trader's Ferry Ltd., [1999] 2 A.C. 418, refd to. [para. 82].

R. v. Chief Constable of Devon and Corn­wall; Ex parte Central Electricity Gener­ating Board, [1982] Q.B. 458, refd to. [para. 82].

R. v. Commissioner of Police of the Met­ropolis; Ex parte Blackburn, [1968] 2 Q.B. 118, refd to. [para. 83].

Monsanto v. Tilly, [2000] Env. L.R. 313, refd to. [para. 84].

R. v. Hill (1988), 89 Cr. App. Rep. 74, refd to. [para. 90].

Blake v. Director of Public Prosections, [1993] Crim. L.R. 586, refd to. [para. 90].

Morrow, Geach and Thomas v. Director of Public Prosecutions, [1994] Crim. L.R. 58, refd to. [para. 90].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Law Act, 1967 (U.K.), sect. 3 [para. 24].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Berman, Franklin, Asserting Jurisdiction: International and European Legal Per­spectives (2003), p. 11 [para. 23].

Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, Book IV, c. 5, pp. 67 [para. 11]; 68 [para. 20].

Brownlie, Ian, Principles of Public Inter­national Law (5th Ed. 1998), p. 566 [para. 18].

Holdsworth, William Searle, A History of English Law (1936), vol. 2, p. 450 [para. 21].

International Law Commission, Draft Code of Crimes Against the Peace and Secur­ity of Mankind (1996), vol. 2, Part 2, p. 42 [para. 63]

O'Keefe, Roger, Customary International Crimes in English Courts (2001), B.Y.I.L. 293, p. 335 [para. 23].

Rogers, War Crimes Trials under the Royal Warrant: British Practice 1945-1949 (1990), 39 I.C.L.Q. 780, pp. 787, 788 to 799 [para. 22].

United Kingdom, Law Commission Report on Offences of Damage to Pro­perty, Law Comm. No. 270 (1970), para. 49 [para. 25].

Weber, Max, Politics as a Vocation (Poli­tik als Beruf) (1918), generally [para. 76].

Counsel:

[not disclosed]

Agents:

[not disclosed]

This appeal was heard before Lord Bing­ham of Cornhill, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Rod­ger of Earlsferry, Lord Carswell and Lord Mance of the House of Lords. The decision of the house was given on March 29, 2006, when the following speeches were delivered:

Lord Bingham of Cornhill - see para­graphs 1 to 36;

Lord Hoffmann - see paragraphs 37 to 95;

Lord Rodger of Earlsferry - see para­graph 96;

Lord Carswell - see paragraph 97;

Lord Mance - see paragraphs 98 to 106.