R v Alan Hedgcock and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE LAWS |
| Judgment Date | 26 November 2007 |
| Neutral Citation | [2007] EWCA Crim 3486 |
| Docket Number | No. 2007/00048/D1, 2007/0233/D1 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
| Date | 26 November 2007 |
[2007] EWCA Crim 3486
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION
Lord Justice Laws
Mr Justice Lloyd Jones and Sir Michael Astill
No. 2007/00048/D1, 2007/0233/D1
2007/00227/D1
Mr C H Blaxland QC and Miss N Hartford-Bell appeared on behalf of the Appellant Alan Hedgcock
Mr A M Shaw QC appeared on behalf of the Appellant David Dyer
Mr S Swift appeared on behalf of the Appellant Robert Mayers
Miss A Green QC and Miss L Kamill appeared on behalf of the Crown
( For Approval)
Monday 26 November 2007
These appellants faced an indictment containing 51 counts. They appeared before His Honour Judge Rivlin QC at the Southwark Crown Court on various dates between 2 February 2006 and 13 January 2007. On 21 June 2006 pleas of guilty were entered by all three appellants to counts 4– 51. Dyer (then named Beavan) pleaded guilty to eight counts of distributing indecent photographs of a child under 16, ten of making indecent photographs of a child under 16, one of possessing 4,318 indecent photographs of a child and one count of possessing thirteen indecent movies of a child under 16. Hedgcock pleaded guilty to two counts of distributing indecent photographs of a child under 16, ten of making indecent photographs of such a child, one of possessing 647 indecent photographs of such a child and one of possessing three indecent movies of a child under 16. Mayers pleaded guilty to four counts of distributing indecent photographs of a child under 16, three of making such indecent photographs (classed as levels 4–5), five further counts of making indecent photographs (levels 1–3), one count of possessing 224 indecent photographs of a child under 16 and one of possessing 84 movies of such a child.
There remain counts 1 to 3. Count 1 charged Dyer and Hedgcock with conspiracy to rape a girl below the age of 16. Count 2 charged the same defendants with conspiracy to murder a girl under 16. Count 3 charged Dyer and Mayers with another conspiracy to rape a girl under the age of 16.
On 21 June 2006 (the same day as that on which the pleas to the other counts were taken) His Honour Judge Rivlin heard and refused defence applications to dismiss these three counts on the footing that they were not supported by evidence fit to go to a jury. The appellants thereupon entered pleas of not guilty to those three counts. Their trial on counts 1–3 commenced on 20 November 2006. On 23 November 2006 the trial judge heard and rejected submissions of no case to answer. On 1 December 2006 Dyer was convicted on count 1 by a majority of 11:1 and unanimously on count 3. Hedgcock was convicted on count 1 (also by an 11:1 majority) and Mayers was unanimously convicted on count 3. Dyer and Hedgcock were acquitted on count 2.
On 5 February 2007 the judge passed sentence. Sentences of imprisonment for public protection were passed in relation to counts 1–3 and determinate sentences on counts 4 to 51. It is unnecessary to say any more about the sentences at this stage.
The appellants now appeal against conviction and sentence by leave of the single judge. The conviction appeals relate to the guilty verdicts returned by the jury on counts 1 and 3 on 1 December 2006.
The essence of the case overall consisted of conversations between the three appellants over the internet and pornographic images exchanged between them and downloaded from their computers. The evidence relied on by the Crown to prove the two conspiracies to rape (counts 1 and 3) was to be found in the internet conversations. In dealing with the facts we shall concentrate on that material.
The relevant facts came to light after the appellant Dyer walked into the Bournemouth Police Station on 3 January 2006 and told the police that he had been accessing child pornography through the internet. He handed over a DVD which contained indecent images of children and logs of internet conversations. He was arrested. His computer and accessories were seized from his home. These materials told the police that Dyer had had internet “chats” and had exchanged child pornography with the other two appellants. The three of them used the following names on the net: Dyer “Dxnproductions”, Hedgcock “Pholley” and Mayers “Bobbohere”. Hedgcock and Mayers were identified by the police through the computer material. They were interviewed in January and February 2006.
The internet conversations which were to be led in evidence fell into two groups. There was a substantial conversation between Dyer and Hedgcock on 28 December 2005 in the course of which they exchanged photographs, including indecent pictures of young girls. Hedgcock sent to Dyer images of his goddaughter and his sister. They were aged 15 and 14 respectively. He introduced them to Dyer over the website as his nieces called Fi and Becca (not their real names). He said that they were aged 13 and 14. These chats on 28 December 2005, to whose detail we will have to return, relate on the Crown case to count 1. The Crown case was that during this conversation Dyer and Hedgcock made an agreement to rape one or both of the “nieces”—a real agreement actually intended to be carried out. That is critical because the central point for the defence was that at most these chats were evidence of fantasising for sexual gratification.
The second group of chats was between Dyer and Mayers. These relate to count 3 (the second rape conspiracy). There are before the court transcripts of conversations on three dates, 23 October 2005, 31 December 2005 and 2 January 2006. Again indecent images were exchanged, although none of the “nieces”. The Crown say that on 2 January 2006 (the day before he went to the police station) Dyer told Mayers of the plan to rape the “nieces”, to which Mayers then became a party.
The grounds of appeal against conviction on behalf of all three appellants first assert that the judge was wrong to reject the submission of no case to answer. At the end of the prosecution evidence it was accepted on behalf of Dyer and Hedgcock (the defendants on count 1) that there was evidence on the transcripts of the chats showing on the face of it an agreement to commit rape. Mayers for his part did not accept that there was evidence to that effect involving him. We need to look at some of the detail in the transcripts, bearing in mind that the principal point upon which emphasis has been laid in the course of argument before us is whether there was evidence fit to go to the jury that any agreement to rape that was apparent on the face of these transcripts was in truth an agreement actually intended to be carried out.
We turn to the conversation between Dyer and Hedgcock on 28 December 2005. It is plain from the beginning of the transcript that the parties had been in touch before because Dyer at once asks: “How old are nieces?” Hedgcock answers: “13 and 14”. As the chats progress there are certain features which become very clear. First the two men encourage each other into a state of sexual excitement as they exchange messages. Pornographic pictures are from time to time sent down the line. The pictures sent of the “nieces” are not in fact pornographic. The men describe sexual acts which they (especially Dyer) say that they would like to perform. The two men masturbate as they exchange messages. The images they describe in the conversation are largely images of rape and violence. Hedgcock presents himself as eager to offer up his “nieces” for Dyer's pleasure. At page 10 Dyer says:
“How far would you let me go with them?”
Hedgcock replies:
“If I'm honest, if you got your hands on them I wouldn't mind.”
In the course of these repulsive exchanges there are passages which, as Dyer and Hedgcock accepted, on the face of it disclose an agreement to commit rape of the “nieces”. Indeed they disclose, it would seem, an agreement to murder them. That was the subject of count 2 upon which Dyer and Hedgcock were acquitted by the jury. Passages apparently disclosing an agreement to rape and passages relied on by the Crown as tending to show that this agreement was intended to be carried out include the following. (The transcript is so arranged as to give in each case the computer name being used by the participant in the conversation. We will refer to the real names.)
“ DYER: I would really do them for you, no messing. I am not into fantasy.
HEDGCOCK: Hmm, now tell me what you'd do if forced? I have often thought about raping them, or getting someone to rape them and film it. Cool.
DYER : Would need to get them into woods, would have fake gun and threaten to kill them.
HEDGCOCK: They have to walk through woods near where they live to get to school. I've often thought about doing it there.
DYER: N o problem, blindfold them.
….
HEDGCOCK: [Referring to one of the 'nieces'] She has amazing legs, she's only 13 but already 5'10.
DYER: F uck, yes. Just right for raping.
HEDGCOCK: Perfect for brutal rape.
DYER : Whatever. Are woods isolated?
HEDGCOCK: Yes, there's a large stretch of them along a river where they live. Their mum's always telling them not to walk through there alone.
DYER : Prefer this one alone.
HEDGCOCK: Yes. She's the one I've always wanted to do the most as well.”
(As that is said, Hedgcock sends a picture.)
“ DYER: I would get you to rape her at gunpoint as well. So horny.
HEDGCOCK: Oh, fuck, would you pretend you didn't know me and force me so she knew it was me? But I had to do it cos of the gun?
DYER : Yes.
HEDGCOCK: Oh, fuck.
DYER: A nd hit her hard, otherwise threaten to kill...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Queen of on the Application of Ashley Charles v Criminal Cases Review Commission
... ... relied upon by Mr Blaxland (and Mr Cragg), Hedgecock and G and F , are amongst others cited in support of this passage of text. There is nothing new about it. The facts of Hedgecok ... ...
-
Solicitors Regulation Authority v Richard Spector (formerly the Third Respondent)
...inferences (consistent with the solicitor's innocence of the allegations) could be safely excluded — see for instance R v Hedgecock [2007] EWCA Crim 3486. In the present case, that was not so. It was striking that the SDT, in dismissing the allegations against the Third Respondent at the c......
-
Queen v Barry McCarney
...to carry out the agreement. At paragraphs 30ff he referred to passages from the judgments of Laws LJ in R v Hedgcock and others [2007] EWCA Crim 3486 and Moses LJ in R v Jabber [2006] EWCA Crim 2694 and how they had been considered in R v Darnley [2012] EWCA Crim 1148, in which Elias LJ del......
-
R v Omar Khyam and Others
...With regard to the probe evidence of conversations between the defendants, he relied on O'Brien 59 Cr.App.R.222 @225 and Hedgecock, [2007] EWCA Crim 3486, where Laws LJ, at paragraph 21, said: “If at the close of the Crown's case the trial judge concludes that a reasonable jury could not r......
-
It's Not Just Galbraith
...at the time the agreement was concluded, to carry out that agreement. After considering the cases of R v Hedgecock, Dyer and Mayers [2007] EWCA Crim 3486 and the judgment of Laws LJ who referred to Lord Diplock in Kwan Ping Bong v R [1979] AC 609 and the statements of Moses LJ in R v Jabber......