Davies v DPP

Facts

Davies was convicted of the murder of a boy during a fight between two groups of youths on Clapham Common. A youth called Lawson, who had been in the fight but was not said to have taken part in the killing, gave evidence for the prosecution. The judge did not warn the jury that he might be an accomplice.

Issue

When must a judge warn the jury about an accomplice, and who is an accomplice?

Held

The House of Lords dismissed the appeal. On the facts Lawson was not an accomplice to the murder. Lord Simonds LC set out the three classes and the duty to warn.

Principle

An accomplice warning is required where the witness is a party to the offence charged, a receiver testifying against the thieves, or a party to another offence which is admissible to prove the charge. The warning is not required of a witness called for the defence.

Why it matters

It is the classification. The judge identifies what is capable of corroborating the accomplice. The jury decides whether it does.

For study only. By lanbuk.com. Always check current sources and consult a qualified professional.