"On behalf of the appellant it was submitted that he could not have had the requisite intention to commit the alleged attempt because he did not intend to incite any actual child under the age of 13 to engage in sexual activity."

"It is well established that a genuine but mistaken belief can be relied upon as a defence to a criminal charge such as false imprisonment where the Crown have to prove that the defendant's conduct was unlawful. This principle is well illustrated by the case of R v Gladstone Williams [1984] 78 CAR 276 where the appellant was charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm."

"The appeal is primarily concerned with joint enterprise in cases of homicide and, in particular, with the rule the effect of which is that a limited category of secondary parties will not be guilty of murder if the fatal act of the primary party was fundamentally different to that foreseen by the secondary party."

"This appellant was convicted in the Crown Court at Maidstone of an offence of sexual assault contrary to section 3 Sexual Offences Act 2003. The issue to which his conviction gives rise is whether he can or cannot be heard to say that by reason of voluntary intoxication he did not have the necessary state of mind to commit the offence."

The judge's direction was wrong in a number of respects... It was wrong to refer to an act which sober and reasonable people would inevitably realise must subject the victim to at least the risk of some harm, although not necessarily serious harm. That direction was repeated on a number of occasions. It has no place in the definition of murder.