Disclaimer: This work was produced by one of our expert legal writers, as a learning aid to help law students with their studies.

Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not reflect the views of LawTeacher.net. Any information contained in this case summary does not constitute legal advice and should be treated as educational content only.

R v Jordan - 1956

329 words (1 pages) Case Summary

30th Sep 2021 Case Summary Reference this In-house law team

Jurisdiction / Tag(s): UK Law

Law Case Summary

R v Jordan (James Clinton) (1956) 40 Cr. App R 152

Medical evidence was to the cause of death – new evidence regarding the cause of death

Facts of R v Jordan

Jordan, who worked for the United States Air Force, stabbed a man as the result of a disturbance. The victim died in hospital eight days later. The post-mortem found that the victim died of broncho-pneumonia following the abdominal injury sustained. The court in the first instance found Jordan guilty. The doctor who treated the victim contacted the United States Air Force authorities as he took a different view as to the cause of death. Leave was approved for the gathering of further evidence.

Issues in R v Jordan

A key issue in this case was whether and under what circumstances could a court listen to additional evidence. One of the pre-requisites for such an application was that it must be shown the evidence was not available at the initial trial stage. The appellant had also raised various defences including provocation, self-defence and the fact that it was an accident.

Decision/Outcome of R v Jordan

The court held that the additional evidence was of a nature that would probably have affected the jury’s verdict. The additional evidence opined that the death was not caused by the wound at all but that the medical treatment was inappropriate. The victim was intolerant to terramycin which was noticed and initially stopped before being continued the following day by another doctor. They had also introduced abnormal quantities of fluid which waterlogged the victim’s lungs. This evidence was not available at the initial trial and it was believed that a jury would listen to opinion of two doctors that had the standing the experts did in this case. On this basis, the conviction was quashed.

Cite This Work

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below:

Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.

Related Services

View all

Related Content

Jurisdictions / Tags

Content relating to: "UK Law"

UK law covers the laws and legislation of England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. Essays, case summaries, problem questions and dissertations here are relevant to law students from the United Kingdom and Great Britain, as well as students wishing to learn more about the UK legal system from overseas.

Related Articles