R v Abbott
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Date | 1955 |
| Court | Court of Criminal Appeal |
Criminal Law - Court of Criminal Appeal - Appeal against conviction - Prosecution for forgery - Two accused - No evidence at close of case for prosecution against one accused - Submission of no case wrongly overruled - Incriminating evidence given by other accused - Right of Court of Criminal Appeal to allow appeal - Other evidence not to be taken into consideration. - Criminal Law - Submission of no case.
The appellant and another were indicted together for forgery. At the close of the case for the prosecution a submission was made on behalf of the appellant that there was no evidence against him fit to go to the jury. The trial judge rejected the submission and refused to withdraw the case from the jury, although the prosecution had then established no case against the appellant. Evidence was then given by the other accused incriminating the appellant. The appellant and his co-defendant were convicted. On appeal against conviction:—
Held, that the appellant was entitled to have his appeal allowed as the judge had come to a wrong decision in point of law in rejecting the submission of no case and in leaving the case to the jury when there was no evidence against him at the close of the case for the prosecution. In those circumstances the Court of Criminal Appeal was not obliged to take into account the adverse evidence given against him when the case was wrongly left to the jury.
APPEAL against conviction.
The appellant, Charles Clement Abbott, and a woman named Ruth Wales, were tried before Glyn-Jones J. at Manchester Assizes upon an indictment which charged them with forgery of a valuable security, namely, a receipt for £2,415, obtaining money by false pretences, and conspiracy to defraud the Refuge Assurance Company.
Some few years before the events leading to the trial the appellant had taken out an insurance policy for the benefit of his wife, Mary Alys Abbott, for the sum of £10,000, the premiums payable being over £900 a year. Three premiums having been paid the policy was converted into a free policy. In 1954 the appellant and his wife separated, the wife going to live in Jersey while the appellant continued to live in Leigh, Lancashire, at his house known as “The Lingards.” He also had an office in Leigh where Ruth Wales was employed as his secretary. The evidence of one Burns, the branch manager of the insurance company in Leigh, and the chief witness for the prosecution, was, in effect, that in June, 1954, an inquiry was received in the Leigh office of the insurance company regarding the surrender value of the policy. On June 18 he (Burns) telephoned to “The Lingards,” asked for Mrs. Abbott, and a conversation took place between him and a woman purporting to be Mrs. Abbott with regard to the surrender of the policy and the payment over of its value in cash. Having made inquiries from his head office he again telephoned “The Lingards” on June 29 and was informed by Mrs. Warburton, a daily help, to whom he spoke on that occasion, that Mrs. Abbott was away. He telephoned again on July 5 or 6, when a conversation to the following effect took place. The conversation was initiated by him, and he asked to speak to Mrs. Abbott. The person who answered the telephone said that Mrs. Abbott was away but “Mr. Abbott is at hand, would you like to speak to him?” A male voice then spoke to him (Burns) and a conversation took place as a result of which he attended at “The Lingards” on July 15, where he met Ruth Wales and paid over to her the sum of £2,415 in cash. Ruth Wales signed a receipt for the money in the name of Mary Alys Abbott. There was no question that the telephone call had taken place on July 5 or 6. Moreover he was unable to say that it was in fact the appellant who had spoken to him.
The case for the prosecution against the appellant Abbott centred upon the fact that he was a party to the telephone conversation of July 5 or 6 in which it was arranged that the policy should be surrendered and the money paid over, but it transpired from the evidence of Mrs. Warburton, who was called for the prosecution, that the appellant was away in Torquay on the material date.
At the close of the case for the prosecution counsel for the appellant submitted that there was no evidence against the appellant to go to the jury, but that submission was rejected by the judge after calling on counsel for Ruth Wales to reply. Both Ruth Wales and the appellant gave evidence, and while the appellant gave no direct evidence against himself Ruth Wales stated that she gave the receipt and took the money on the appellant's authority on the understanding that it was to be sent to Mrs. Abbott in Jersey.
Glyn-Jones J. said in the course of his summing up:
“It is perfectly true … it is not enough for the prosecution … to say ‘Here is a swindle. One or other of these accused has committed that swindle, but we, the prosecution, do not know which and we will leave it to you to decide.’ The burden remains on the prosecution to prove...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Payne v Harrison
...to take into consideration that adverse evidence, following the majority of the earlier decisions in preference to Rex v. Joiner. 9 In Reg, v. Abbott (1955 2 Queen's Bench, page 497), however, there was a somewhat different approach, and Rex v. Power was explained. Mr. Brabin relies strongl......
-
R v Gibson (Turhan)
...defendant rather than the other. The prosecution seem to have considered that they were in the situation envisaged by Lord Goddard, C.J. in Abbott 39 Cr.App.R. 141. In that case Abbott and his secretary Mrs. Wales were charged with forgery in a joint count. The prosecution case against him ......
- Nicoll v Catron
- Public Prosecutor v Kanapathy a/l Kuppusamy
-
ASABA & ORS V. THE QUEEN
...14 Crim. App. R. 17; (1919) 1 K.B. 572; 88 L.J.K.B. 593; 120 L.T. 577; 83 J.P. 124; 35 T.L.R. 283; 26 Cox C.C.399. 50 8. R. v. Abbott (1955) 2 Q.B. 497; (1955) 2 All E.R. 899; 199 J.P. 526; 99 Sol. Jo. 544; 39 Crim. App. R. 141. 9. Payne v. Harrison (1961) 3 W.R. 309; (1961) 2 All E.R. 873;......