R v Andrews
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE |
| Judgment Date | 30 November 1972 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1972] EWCA Crim J1130-2 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
| Docket Number | No. 3403/C/72 |
| Date | 30 November 1972 |
[1972] EWCA Crim J1130-2
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL APPEAL
Royal Courts of Justice
The Lord Chief Justice of England (Lord Widgery)
Lord Justice Megaw
and
Mr. Justice Talbot
No. 3403/C/72
MR. A. LYON appeared as Counsel for the Appellant.
MISS P. COLES appeared as Counsel for the Crown.
At Woodford Crown Court last June this Appellant was convicted on one count of incitement to pervert the course of public justice and he was sentenced to eighteen months' imprisonment. He appeals against conviction and sentence by leave of the single Judge, and in regard to his appeal against conviction the points raised are exclusively points of law. They have to be decided against this factual background which at this stage of the matter Mr. Lyon does not feel able to dispute. There was a traffic accident on the 6th September, 1971; a Mr. Watling was riding a moped in Romford and as he approached a road junction two other cars were at or in the vicinity of the junction. One car was driven by Andrews the Appellant and the other car was driven by a man called Reeves. Andrews' car seems to have been stationary at the time, and no one suggested he was responsible for the collision which Mr. Watling suffered from, but Reeves' car was in motion, and an immediate appreciation of the situation after the accident was that the moped had been knocked over by Reeves' car and Reeves was a potential defendant in proceedings in respect of that accident. That being the case, according to Reeves some seven days later the Appellant sought Reeves out in the shop which Reeves kept. He told Reeves that he had a directive from the Police to call at the Police Station urgently, and that Reeves was in a lot of trouble and would need a good witness. Reeves, according to his evidence, said: "What do you mean, what are you getting at" or words to that effect. The Appellant said: "Well, it is obvious, isn't it". The Appellant then said: "I'm in your hands" and made a reference to making an offer. Reeves said: "Well £20"; that was not satisfactory to the Appellant and no bargain was struck. The next day two Police Officers were in the shop when the Appellant returned, and one must approach this case on the footing that there was no doubt that the Appellant was inviting Reeves, to make him, the Appellant, a payment to give evidence at the prospective prosecution which was contrary to the fact.
In the appeal against conviction two points of law are taken in regard to the conviction entered on those facts. Before I turn to the arguments, I should read the terms of the count in the indictment upon which the conviction was entered. It alleges that the Appellant was guilty of incitement to pervert the course of public justice contrary to common law. The particulars were that on or about the 13th day of September, 1971 in the County of Essex he "solicited and incited Adrian Kenneth Cuthbert Reeves to pervert the course of public justice by offering in consideration for a reward to make a false statement to the Police relating to an accident involving Reeves on the 6th September, 1971 in which criminal proceedings were being instituted against the said Reeves".
It is said first of all that that count assumes the existence of a substantive offence of perverting the course of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R v Kellett
...Kilner Brown J.; Vreones, 1891 1 Queen's Bench, 360, 367; Tibbits and Windust, 1902 1 King's Bench, 77; Greenberg, (1919) 63 Sol. Jo. 554; Andrews, 1973 Queen's Bench, 433, 425; Panayiotou and Antoniades, 1973 1 Weekly Law Reports, 1032. Those cases show also that tampering with evidenc......
- R v Rogerson
-
R v Rowell
...Criminal Law, 2nd Edition, page 416 and Smith and Hogan, 3rd Edition/page 587. See also R. v. Grimes (1968) 3 All England Reports 179 and R. v. Andrews (1973) 1 Queen's Bench 422). 14 Mr. Smith is however on slightly firmer ground on the second aspect. There must have been, as he says, a ve......
-
The Queen (on the application of Dominic Purvis) v The Director of Public Prosecutions
...Perverting the course of justice 45 Perverting the course of justice (“PCJ”) is a common law offence ( Verones [1891] 1 Q.B. 360, CCR; R v Andrews [1973] Q.B. 422, CA.) The offence is committed where a person: (i) acts or embarks upon a course of conduct, (ii) which has a tendency to, and......
-
Committal of an Expert Witness for Contempt of Court: Liverpool Victoria Insurance Co. Ltd v Zafar [2019] EWCA Civ 392
...of justice. According to Archbold Criminal Pleadings and Practice, 2019, [28-1](applying R v Vreones [1891] 1 QB 360, CCR; R v Andrews [1973] QB 422, CA), the common lawoffence of perverting the course of justice ‘is committed where a person or persons:(a) acts or embarks upon a course of c......
-
Recent Judicial Decisions
...was apparently adapted from words used in the muchearlier case of R. v. Vreones [1891] I Q.B. 360. Two later cases, R. v.Andrews [1973] Q.B. 422 and R. v. Rowell [1978] I W.L.R. 132contained helpful passages. The first clearly envisages that an offer topay a person to give false evidence wa......