LAW

Published on
KembaraXtra-Case Law-Lawrence and Pomroy (1971)
​I. Facts of the Case
  • D (Defendant): Repaired V's (Victim's) roof for £195.
  • V (Victim): Dissatisfied with the work; Paid £125.
  • Dispute: Balance of payment of £70 remaining.
  • Threat: D told V 'You will have to look over your shoulder before you step out of doors' if balance unpaid.
  • Victim's Response: V felt threatened.
II. Legal Issue
  • The necessity of the judge to explain the word "menaces" to the jury.
III. Holding
  • General Rule: Judge not required to explain 'menaces' to the jury.
  • Exception:
    • Special Knowledge/Circumstances: Where special knowledge held by either the defendant or the victim influences the meaning of the communication.
    • Impact: What constitutes a "menace" to an ordinary person is different to that experienced by the victim (or the defendant), the judge must spell out the meaning of the word to the jury.
Picture
0 Comments