Connolly v Dale
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE BALCOMBE,MR JUSTICE BUXTON |
| Judgment Date | 11 July 1995 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1995] EWHC J0711-1 |
| Docket Number | No CO-1847-95 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Date | 11 July 1995 |
[1995] EWHC J0711-1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
CROWN OFFICE LIST
Before: Lord Justice Balcombe Mr Justice Buxton
No CO-1847-95
MR ALAN NEWMAN QC and MR M TURNER (Instructed by Spicer & Co, London) appeared on behalf of the Applicant.
MR SIMON DAVIS (Instructed by C S Porteous, Solicitor for Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis) appeared on behalf of the Respondent.
(As Approved)
This is the judgment of the court to which both its members have contributed.
On 25 May 1995 the body of Robert Earl Beech, an alcoholic and epileptic, was found by police officers at 62 Fielding House, Cambridge Road London N.W.6. He had sustained injuries prior to death and the cause of death was certified as being (1) asphyxia due to inhalation of blood from lacerated mouth and (2) manual strangulation. On 26 May the applicant James Martin Connolly was arrested and charged jointly with William Halligan with the murder of Beech on or about 23/24 May at 62 Fielding House. He was then cautioned in accordance with section 34 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, which came into force on 10 April 1995. The caution is in the following words:-
"You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in Court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence."
The applicant instructed the solicitors' firm of J.D. Spicer and Co. of 140 Kilburn High Road, London, N.W.6 to act for him, and Ms. Julie Skwiercz-Stanhope, a partner in that firm, at about 1.30 p.m. on 26 May went to Kilburn Police Station and spoke at length to the applicant. He instructed her that he had an alibi and wished there to be an interview with the police at which he would provide details. The interview took place at 8.30 p.m. on 26 May in the presence of Ms. Stanhope and Detective Inspector Janet Williams, the officer in charge of the case.
The substance of the applicant's alibi was that for the whole of Tuesday 23 May he was in the Holborn/Covent Garden area, latterly in the company of "Simon", "John" and "Mikey" whom he described as "travellers". They were all drinking together and went to Covent Garden where he was given a cigarette by "Mike", who was working on the merry-go round there. The applicant said he slept that night in the doorway of a building in the Covent Garden area with two old men. The following day, 24 May, he remained in the same area, still drinking with the same individuals, as well as some others whom he described, but whose names he did not know. He went to the Hostel at Parker Street, Holborn, about 8 p.m.
It was obvious to Ms. Stanhope that the persons named by the applicant were all probably "dossers" without permanent fixed abode and were also likely to be alcoholics or otherwise socially disadvantaged. It therefore seemed to her to be imperative that she should take steps to find these persons (and any others) so as to ascertain if they could support what the applicant was saying and who, if they could, would become witnesses in his defence. It was in her view particularly important to have inquiries made at the Parker Street Hostel, as this was the place clearly identified by the applicant in the chronology of his alibi. Her view was confirmed by counsel whom she instructed on behalf of the applicant. She therefore instructed Mr. Geoffrey Baldwin of M.P. Legal Services Ltd., to make enquiries, including enquiries at the Parker Street Hostel in Holborn, of those who might have seen the applicant at the relevant time. For that purpose she furnished Mr. Baldwin with photographs of the applicant.
The police were also interested in obtaining witness statements from the staff of the Parker Street Hostel. Further, D.I. Williams had realised that it was necessary for the hostel staff to be given the opportunity of viewing the applicant on an identification parade, because whilst at the hostel he had represented himself as William Connolly, and staff at the hostel gave statements that he was not present at the hostel on the date he had indicated in his interview. D.I. Williams saw Ms. Stanhope at Brent Magistrates Court on 5 June 1995, when the applicant and Halligan appeared on remand, and in the course of conversation told her that the police would need to ask the applicant to stand on an identification parade. On 7 June D.C. Conley telephoned Ms. Stanhope to ask that the applicant should attend an identification parade on 16 June. He explained the request for the parade, stating that the police would be using members of staff from the hostel (Parker Street) at which the applicant had stayed. He also said that other persons would be used to identify the applicant as the person referred to in their statements. Ms. Stanhope told D.C. Conley that she had employed a private investigator who was in possession of a photograph of the applicant, and she realised that if this photograph was shown to potential witnesses this could cause a problem with any future identification parade.
Mr. Baldwin went to the Parker Street Hostel on 8 June for the purpose of making the enquiries mentioned above, but was told by two police officers that he could not show anyone photographs of the applicant as this might prejudice future identification parades. Mr. Baldwin was not allowed into the hostel by the order of its management, and the several vagrants and other homeless persons he spoke to on that day were very reluctant to speak with him. (D.I. Williams had telephoned the hostel at 5 p.m. on 7 June and asked the acting manager to ensure that all staff at the hostel did not talk to or view photographs in the possession of Ms. Stanhope's private investigator. The first part of this instruction, about not talking to the private investigator, was withdrawn the following day when D.I. Williams was advised by the respondent Detective Superintendent Dale...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
HM Attorney General v Crosland
...administration of justice even if he or she acts with the motive of securing what he or she considers to be a just outcome overall; see Connolly v Dale [1996] QB 120; Attorney General's Reference No 1 of 2002 [2002] EWCA Crim 34 It was, in any event, not necessary for the respondent to di......
-
HM Attorney General v Crosland (No. 2)
...administration of justice even if he or she acts with the motive of securing what he or she considers to be a just outcome overall; see Connolly v Dale [1996] QB 120; Attorney General's Reference No 1 of 2002 [2002] EWCA Crim 2392. 34. It was, in any event, not necessary for the responden......
-
Mandy Chui v Hksar
...or unlawful means include bribes, the use of force, improper pressure or threat. (See e.g. R v Kellett [1976] 1 QB 372, Connolly v Dale [1996] QB 120.) Such acts would have the tendency and effect of improperly influencing the administration of justice and this is so even if it is done for ......
-
Hksar v Kevin Egan
...or unlawful means include bribes, the use of force, improper pressure or threat. (See e.g. R v Kellett [1976] 1 QB 372, Connolly v Dale [1996] QB 120.) Such acts would have the tendency and effect of improperly influencing the administration of justice and this is so even if it is done for ......