Cockburn, R v

Under section 31 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861, an “other engine” is not confined to a device operating through stored energy. The statutory language should be applied pragmatically, by examining the object and its method of activation as a whole. The expression “mechanical contrivance” does not justify a restrictive rewording of the section. A gravity-operated spiked device, triggered when a person opens a door, may therefore be an engine calculated to inflict grievous bodily harm.

The appellant was convicted in the Crown Court at Maidstone of setting a mantrap with intent, contrary to section 31 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861. The device was a spiked metal object connected to the shed door. Opening the door caused it to swing downwards and injure the person entering.

On appeal, the appellant contended that a device operated solely by gravity could not be an “other engine” within section 31. He also contended that the verdicts revealed jury confusion about the different intents required by the counts. The central issue was whether the Recorder had been entitled to leave the section 31 count to the jury.

Disposition

1. Appeal dismissed. The Recorder was entitled to rule that the contraption was capable of falling within section 31 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 and to leave the issue to the jury.
2. Section 31 was enacted to prohibit aggressive and dangerous devices intended to cause very serious injury or death. Its scope is not confined to objects operating through stored energy. The court rejected a restrictive reading of R v Munks [1964] 1QB 304 which would substitute “other mechanical contrivance” for the statutory words “other engine”.
3. The object and, where relevant, its activation should be examined pragmatically and as a whole. The present device was a contrivance which was mechanically triggered into dangerous movement by pressure on a wire or string. Its movement was then caused by gravity. It was therefore properly capable of being an “other engine” calculated to inflict grievous bodily harm.
4. The court doubted whether engineering evidence was admissible on the statutory issue. Expert evidence might assist in showing how a device worked, but statutory construction was initially for the Recorder; if the device was legally capable of being an engine, whether it was such an engine was a factual issue for the jury.
5. The Recorder's directions distinguished the specific intent required for wounding with intent from the less stringent intent on the section 31 count. Recognition of the risk of death or grievous bodily harm could establish the latter intent. The verdicts showed that the jury had understood those distinct issues and were not illogical.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division). In [2008] EWCA Crim 316, the court dismissed the appeal against conviction.
• Crown Court at Maidstone. Mr Recorder Wilson and a jury convicted the appellant of setting a mantrap with intent contrary to section 31 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861.