Camara v DPP
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | MR JUSTICE SILBER,LORD JUSTICE BROOKE |
| Judgment Date | 16 October 2003 |
| Neutral Citation | [2003] EWHC 2737 (Admin) |
| Docket Number | C0/4402/2003 |
| Date | 16 October 2003 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
[2003] EWHC 2737 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
DIVISIONAL COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2
Lord Justice Brooke
Mr Justice Silber
C0/4402/2003
MR A POLSON (instructed by Usmani King, Leighton Buzzard) appeared on behalf of the APPELLANT
MR A MALIK (instructed by CPS Buckinghamshire) appeared on behalf of the RESPONDENT
Thursday, 16th October 2003
Paul Camara appeals by way of case stated against a conviction recorded against him on 11th November 2002 at the Milton Keynes Magistrates' Court of receiving stolen goods. He had been charged jointly with his brother, Dean Camara, that between 29th June 2002 and 30th June 2002 they received a substantial number of stolen goods, including cigarettes, tobacco, lighters and a DVD case.
The question for this court was originally stated to be:
"… whether the decision of this Court on 11th November 2002 that the Appellant was guilty of receiving stolen goods was wrong in law in that there was no evidence that the Appellant was in possession or in control of the stolen property in question and that in our finding he had the requisite mens rea was not based on evidence that could reasonably give rise to such a conclusion".
The question therefore consisted of two parts, one of which was whether the respondent had failed to establish the actus reus of handling stolen goods. That point has not been pursued before us. The second question that was raised was whether the findings of fact were sufficient to establish the appellant had the requisite mens rea for the offence.
Today, Mr Alistair Polson, who appears for the appellant, has abandoned that question but instead he has raised a different issue, which is that one of the reasons that the justices used for deciding that the appellant had the necessary mens rea was his failure "to provide any evidence from any witnesses to give any other explanation which he could have done". It is said that that is a reversal of the burden of proof and, in consequence, the justices took into account an irrelevant factor in reaching their conclusion. Mr Malik for the respondent does not object to this change of stance and so we heard arguments on that basis.
In support of his submission Mr Polson relies on what is an assertion in the case stated, but before I explain it, it is necessary for me to state some of the facts which were found. The appellant was one of three men who had been observed by the police in Oldbrook Boulevard, Milton Keynes, on 30th June 2002 at 12.55. Of those three men, two were dragging a large, bulky object along the ground with a third man being a short distance ahead of them, apparently keeping a lookout. The justices found that on at least one occasion, that man had signalled to the other two men when a vehicle approached, but a time came when the men discarded the object but only retrieved it after the vehicle passed. The three men disappeared from view and the police car was moved, with two police officers getting out to pursue the men on foot. As one of the officers approached the alleyway, he recognised the brother of the appellant emerging from the alleyway a matter of seconds after the three men had disappeared into it. The brother of the appellant knew this officer and he acknowledged him, and he appeared to shake his head towards other people in the alleyway. The justices concluded that that was a signal to the other two men that the police officers were close by. Later the appellant and Matthew Murphy were discovered in the alleyway by one of the police officers, who recognised them both. The justices attached significance to, first, the physical proximity of the alleyway to Oldbrook Boulevard; second, the short period of time that had elapsed between the three men disappearing from view and the brother of the appellant emerging from the alleyway; and, finally, the signal given by him. In the light of those factors, the magistrates concluded that the appellant's brother had been with the appellant and Murphy in Oldbrook Boulevard and that all three were in joint possession or control of the bulky object.
The case stated also records that the police discovered the appellant standing close to a large, bulky duvet cover, which was found to contain the stolen...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Minister for Justice and Equality v O'Connell
...to Article 8, counsel referred the Court to a decision of the UK High Court, Camara v Director of Public Prosecutions [2003] EWHC 2737 (Admin), which indicates the present approach of the UK courts to Article 8. He also relied on a judgment of this Court in a decision called Minister for Ju......