Read Law Right

Your case notes will evolve over the number of sessions you are able to devote to reading a case. These sample notes follow the structure suggested in post 1.4 in this series, bearing in mind the example case has no dissents.

First reading session

Case note on R v Chipunza [2021] EWCA Crim 597.

Case decided in the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) by Thirlwall LJ, Kerr J and Freedman J.

Facts: Appellant convicted of burglary of a hotel room. Masqueraded as the resident. Staff realised and challenged him. Arrested later.

D charged with two counts under Theft Act s9. Count 1 under s9(1)(a) having “entered a dwelling”, and Count 2 also under s9(1)(a) having “entered a part of a building”. [4]

Trial on Count 1 turned on definition of dwelling. Could a hotel room be a dwelling?

Grounds of appeal: [22]

Ground 1: The judge misdirected the jury in providing a definition of “dwelling”.

Ground 2: The judge’s comments on the evidence in the summing up were unfair.

Thirlwall provides only judgment.

“Accordingly, we allow the appeal and quash the conviction on Count 1 of the indictment.” [43]

The main reasoning can be found in paragraphs 22-42.

Second reading session

Focusing on paragraphs 22-42.

Thirlwall analyses the trial judge’s jury direction line-by-line.

Clear that she feels the direction was one-sided.

This is confirmed in paragraph 42 – the ratio. Trial judge must put to the jury a “balanced account” of the characteristics that both support and point away from the room being a dwelling.

“a dwelling is a building or part of a building in which a person is living and makes his/her/their home.”

Factors that would be relevant are found in paragraphs 35-37.

It is for the jury to decide if the location is in fact a dwelling.

Comment

If you tried this yourself, well done if you identified paragraph 42 as containing the ratio. Especially well done if you identified the quoted part-sentence as the actual ratio. It is the statement that links most directly with the legal question.

Notice that there is more content in the first reading session notes. This is because we can skim the judgment, look for key words and extract a lot of factual information in this session quite quickly.

Whereas in the second reading session we are bound to read those paragraphs rather more closely to identify the ratio decidendi. Once located, we can paraphrase it relatively briefly, leaving specific paragraphs to return to in future if needed.

Finally, if you were wondering why the CPS had alternative charges, (the distinction between “dwelling” and “part of a building”), the sentence for burglary from a dwelling would be more severe, particularly as D had previous for this type of burglary. See para 6 of judgment.