Charles William Richardson ; Albert John Longman

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Judgment Date27 March 1968
Judgment citation (vLex)[1968] EWCA Crim J0327-1
Docket NumberNo. 3673/67
CourtCourt of Appeal (Criminal Division)
Date27 March 1968

[1968] EWCA Crim J0327-1



Royal Courts of Justice


Lord Justice Edmund Davies

Lord Justice Widgery


Mr. Justice Lyell

No. 3673/67

No. 3934/67

Albert John Longman
Charles William Richardson

MR. C. L. HAWSER, Q.C. and MR. LASSMAN appeared on behalf of the Applicant Albert John Longman.

MR. RALPH MILNER, Q.C. and MR. LLOYD-ELEY appeared on behalf of the Applicant Charles William Richardson.


Last July at the Central Criminal Court Albert John Longman and Charles William Richardson were convicted of two counts of conspiracy to pervert the course of public justice. Longman was sentenced to eight and six years' imprisonment concurrent, Richardson to twelve and eight years concurrent. They now apply for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence.


The facts began in this way: that during eighteen days between the 28th June and the 27th July of 1966 there was a trial at the Central Criminal Court which arose out of an affray on the 8th March 1966 at a club in Catford. In the course of that affray there were many seriously injured and one man was killed. Among those being tried for, taking part in that affray was Edward Richardson, the brother of Charles Richardson the present Applicant.


The case for the Crown was that these two men, Charles Richardson and Longman with others, conspired together to pervert the course of public justice on the first count by trying to influence the Jury and under the second count by suborning witnesses at that trial. It is perfectly all right, as learned counsel for the accused men have rightly stressed to this Court, that the evidence as to the existence of those conspiracies depended, for all practical purposes, entirely on the testimony of Mrs. Clemence, there being a conflict between her evidence and that of the two accused men. But there were certain facts not in general dispute though the accused men denied that they had been a party to the incidents to which those facts related.


Serving on the Jury at the Affray trial was unquestionably a gentleman named Mr. Charles North, and unquestionably on the 1st July he was visited by two unknown men obviously seeking to tamper with him in the discharge of his duties as a juror. On the 13th July Mr. North, having promptly reported to the Police the two visits of the 1st July, at about 11 o'clock at night a bottle was thrown through one of his windows with a note in it, reading in capitals:- "Charlie bring them in guilty or else a lot more where this came from. Your not alone among the twelve". That was disclosed at the trial it being agreed that the Jury including Mr. North should continue to function. Two other jurors testified that they also had received telephone calls from strangers during the period that they were acting as jurors.


The two Applicants were well known to each other, Charles Richardson living at 24 Acland Crescent with a lady.


In evidence Mrs. Clemence said that she had changed her name by deed poll while living with Mr. Clemence, who had died in June 1964. In September of that year Longman arrived telling her that he had been told to come over by Richardson to look after her and her flat. By November of 1964 the two were living together in her flat as man and wife and they continued to do that until July 1966, save for a period between August of 1965 and February of the following year. On the 28th August of 1965 Mrs. Clemence complained to the Police that Longman had beaten her, and there is no doubt about this, that on the 26th and 28th January of 1966 two bomb attacks were made on her flat at night. Those incidents were reported to the Police, but Longman denied any complicity therein. In February he moved back to her flat and stayed there or at Hastings with her, she returning from Hastings to London on the 9th July of 1966, the Affray trial then being on at the Central Criminal Court.


She was strongly attacked, not only as an unreliable witness in the ordinary sense, but as a person suffering from hallucinations, she had spells of drunkenness when her imagination ran riot and she entertained entirely groundless fears. She was said to be a prostitute and a deliberate perjurer and her whole history and background as well as her relationship with the accused, Longman, was perfectly rightly investigated. She maintained that she was terrified of Longman, that she did not want him at her flat, had no affection for him and had repeatedly tried to get away from him. But Longman on the other hand said she was happy with him and even wanted him to marry her.


It was against that background of the relationship between the vital Crown witness and one of the accused that the happenings of the week beginning the 11th July of 1966 took place. It was, as I have said, for all practical purposes entirely because of what Mrs. Clemence said she then saw and heard that the case was presented against these two accused on the two conspiracy counts.


The first one, as we have already remarked, was one of conspiracy to pervert justice. It was laid between the 28th June and the 28th July of 1966, the particulars of charge being that these two accused men had conspired with others to attempt to influence the Jury in trying Edward Richardson at the Central Criminal Court. According to Mrs. Clemence, Longman during that week beginning the 11th July visited the Central Criminal Court, according to him, each day saying he was going there to look at the jurors' faces and try to find out where one of them lived, and further told her that Charles Richardson wanted a new trial. He was worried about his brother getting "bird". She gave evidence of three visits that she had paid with Longman to Charles Richardson's house, the last being established as Saturday, 16th July. Though it appeared by no means certain, it seemed on balance that the other two visits were on Wednesday and Thursday evenings, the 15th and 14th July.


On the first visit Mrs. Clemence said they picked up a man at a public house. He followed them in his car to Charles Richardson's house. On the way Longman said that the man they had picked up had just done ten years for safe blowing. She stayed in the car outside and later went in, quite shortly after which the man they had picked up left. It was then that she saw Charles Richardson read out from a list the names of the jurors to Longman, telling him to find their names in the telephone books and ring up the names until he was sure he got the right one. She remembered three of the names she had heard. They were North, Cawrey (Corey) and Nash. But Longman did not have any success, and during that visit she asserted she heard Longman explain to Richardson that he planned to follow one of the jurors from the Central Criminal Court to his home.


According to Mrs. Clemence the next incident occurred on the following evening when Longman again drove her to the house of Charles Richardson; once more she remained outside in the car, but later went in to the toilet and on coming out found the lights were out. She pushed the door of the room where she could hear voices talking and then she was told by Longman that she could not come in and he conducted her back to the car. At about half past 10 she saw Charles Richardson and a man, named James Fraser, leaving the house and go off in a car. Longman took her to visit a public house and they arrived back at Charles Richardson's house at about 11.10 p.m. After that Charles Richardson came back and Longman eventually took her home, dropping him off near Kensington Police Station. On this occasion she asserted Longman told her that Charles Richardson had thrown a bottle through a juror's window and threatened her to say nothing about it, or of Fraser and Richardson leaving the house that night.


The third visit was on the Saturday, 16th July. When they arrived at Charles Richardson's she again remained outside in the car. Whilst she was there she saw the man that they had picked up in the public house on the first visit, arriving with another man in a Jaguar car. She said she became terrified that she was going to be hurt. She went to the telephone box and, as the Police confirmed, she did indeed telephone New Scotland Yard. Longman drove up while she was telephoning and she cut short her conversation. She joined him telling him that she had been speaking to her father. On that day she did not see Charles Richardson, nor, after that day, did she see either of the two accused. During that week according to her, Longman had told her that he was a professional frightener.


Other evidence, consisting of documents found at one or another of Charles Richardson's premises, was tendered in support of the allegations of these conspiracies. All the documents related to some part of the Affray trial. For example, there was a cigarette packet which had the name of North written on it in Charles Richardson's handwriting; others were about North and certain Police Officers being in a conspiracy; and another was a document with the name 'Sutters' on it, and Sutters was the name of the Affray foreman juror.


The second count was laid between the 8th March and the 28th July. It alleged a conspiracy to pervert justice by suborning Crown witnesses on the trial of Edward Richardson for making an affray. The evidence as to this, again that of Mrs. Clemence, was that whilst Charles Richardson and Longman were talking during the first visit, which would apparently be on or about the 13th July, she heard Charlos say that he was very pleased about the way a girl had given her evidence and asked Longman if he had looked after her. Longman replied, "We gave her the money and saw her...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • DPP v Fitzgerald
    • Ireland
    • Supreme Court
    • 29 November 2018
    ...guilty or have pleaded guilty or the Director of Public Prosecutions should have decided not to charge the accomplice; R v Richardson [1969] 1 QB 299 and R v Conti (1973) 58 Cr App R 387. Insofar as it is possible, it may be desirable that the prosecution should minimise the incentive for ......
  • Goldsmith v Sandilands
    • Australia
    • High Court
    • 8 August 2002
    ...533 at 545. 19Toohey v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1965] AC 595. 20R v Hemp (1833) 5 Car & P 468 [ 172 ER 1057]; R v Richardson [1969] 1 QB 299. 21 [1974] AC 22The Nominal Defendant v Clements (1960) 104 CLR 476. 23Palmer v The Queen (1998) 193 CLR 1 at 22 [52]. 24 [1965] AC 595 at 60......
  • Bull v R; King v R; Marotta v R
    • Australia
    • High Court
    • 11 May 2000
    ...590 per Park J [ 172 ER 558 at 559]. 15Thomas v David (1836) 7 Car & P 350 [173 ER 156]; Cargill (1913) 8 Cr App R 224; R v Richardson [1969] 1 QB 299. 16 See, for example, the comments of Bray CJ in R v Gun; Ex parte Stephenson (1977) 17 SASR 165 at 17 See, for example, what was said by th......
  • The Caribbean Home Insurance Company Ltd v Lynch and Thomas
    • Trinidad & Tobago
    • High Court (Trinidad and Tobago)
    • 23 February 1991
    ...Law of Evidence 10th Edition p. 287. (2) R v. Watson 1817 2 Sark 116 152. (3) R v. Brown 1867 1 CC R 70. (4) R v. Longman v. Richardson [1969] 1 Q.B. 299. (5) Phipson on Evidence 13th Edition p 821 354 The first and second named defendant's attorney conceded that he is not entitled to lead ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Table of Cases
    • United Kingdom
    • International Journal of Evidence & Proof, The No. 13-4, November 2009
    • 1 November 2009
    .... . . . . . . . . 311R vReid (2003) 18CR (6th) 350,Ont CA . . . . . . 283R vREM 2008 SCC51 . . . . . . 73,270, 279, 288,290R vRichardson [1969] 1QB 299. . . . . . . . . . . . . 250R vRobb (1991) 93Cr App R161 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53R vRobinson (1994) 98Cr App R370 . . . . . 84–86,89, 9......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT