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.

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 appellants 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.

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. 13334 set out the following:
With respect to the critical facts of the casewhether the crime charged was committed
and whether the defendant was the person who committed the crimethe 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
seenthat 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.

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.

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.

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 individuals
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 Universitys
rules and policies related to academic integrity.