R v Rupert Earl-Ocran
[2024] EWCA Crim 1031
R v Vivian Barrington Wills
24 October 2024
[2024] EWCA Crim 1351
Court of Appeal
A man was convicted of threatening someone with a gun, claiming he feared a drug gang. He appealed, arguing the judge made mistakes. The court disagreed, saying the judge's errors were minor, and the evidence still supported the conviction. The appeal was rejected.
Key Facts
- •Vivian Wills convicted of possessing a firearm with intent to cause fear of violence (Firearms Act 1968, section 16A).
- •Incident involved a confrontation with a council tax enforcement officer.
- •Wills claimed self-defense due to fear of a Spanish drug gang related to a prior drug smuggling incident.
- •Wills had received threats and an Osman warning after his trial.
- •A section 8 application for disclosure of further information was made and partially refused.
Legal Principles
Self-defense: A person can use reasonable force to defend themselves or others if they genuinely believe they are under attack, even if mistaken. Failure to retreat is a relevant factor but doesn't preclude self-defense.
Part 18.2 of the Crown Court Compendium, Judge's summing-up (section 14)
Standard of proof in criminal cases: The prosecution must prove guilt 'beyond reasonable doubt'.
Judge's direction to the jury (section 16)
Fresh evidence: The court can admit fresh evidence if it would likely affect the outcome of the case and could not have been reasonably produced at trial.
Section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968
Disclosure: Prosecution has an ongoing duty to disclose relevant material to the defense.
Implied throughout the case
Outcomes
Appeal against conviction dismissed.
The court found the conviction safe. The judge's directions on self-defense were not legally flawed, and the fresh evidence (Osman warning) did not impact the outcome. The section 8 application was largely refused appropriately.
Leave to adduce fresh evidence refused.
The fresh evidence (Osman warning) did not affect the conviction's safety; it was not known to Wills at the time of the offence.
Leave to pursue an additional ground of appeal refused.
The proposed new ground merely re-framed an existing argument.