R v Arrowsmith
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE LAWTON |
| Judgment Date | 04 December 1974 |
| Neutral Citation | [1974] EWCA Crim J1204-4 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1974] EWCA Crim J1204-2 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
| Date | 04 December 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 2357/B/74 |
[1974] EWCA Crim J1204-2
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Lord Justice Lawton
Lord Justice Mocatta
and
Mr. Justice Cantley
No. 2357/B/74
MR. J. PLATTS-MILLS, Q.C. and MR. R. TANSY appeared on behalf of the Appellant.
MR. M. COOMBE appeared on behalf of the Crown.
On 20th May 1974 at the Central Criminal Court, after a trial before His Honour Judge Abdela, this appellant was convicted on two counts of an indictment. The first charged her as follows: Endeavouring to seduce a member of Her Majesty's forces from his duty or allegiance to Her Majesty, contrary to section 1 of the Incitement to Disaffection Act 1934. Count 2 charged her with possessing a document of such a nature that the dissemination of copies thereof among members of Her Majesty's forces would constitute an offence. contrary to section 1 of the same Act, the offence itself being contrary to section 2(1) of the same Act. She was sentenced to eighteen months' imprisonment on each count, the sentences to run concurrently.
She now appeals to this Court against her conviction on points of law. She applies for leave to appeal against her conviction on grounds of mixed fact and law, and she also applies for leave to appeal against her sentence. Her application for leave to appeal against sentence is granted. MR. Platts-Mills, do you consent to the appeal being heard today?
I do, My Lord.
The facts out of which this appeal arises are as follows. At warminster in Wiltshire, there is an Army Centre. It consists of a School of Infantry, a command Workshop and married quarters. It was said at the trial that somewhere in the Warminster area in September 1973 there was a batallion of an Irish Regiment.
During the afternoon of 22nd September 1973, warrant officer Laidlaw, who was the Orderly Officer of the day, as a result of certain information received by him, and after consultation with the civil police, went with two other soldiers to a block of flats in the married quarter area occupied by serving soldiers and their families. On getting there he saw two men, one of whom was the appellant, go into a block of flats, he followed, and found the pair of them on the top floor putting leaflets through some doors. He told them that they were on military property, and that they must stop delivering their leaflets, and leave. The appellant gave him her name, referred to a case at Colchester, and said the Director of Public Prosecutions had ruled that the leaflet was in order. She refused to go. Another man and another woman were found nearby distributing the same leaflets.
The civilian police at Warminster were informed: two officers arrived. According to these police officers, the appellant handed to each of them a copy of the leaflet, saying something to the effect that it had been seen by the Director of Public Prosecutions who had ruled that it was not subversive literature and that "as they had been found not guilty at Colchester" they did not regard themselves as committing any offence.
After argument and various warnings, the appellant said "If you are not going to arrest us, I shall go on delivering". She walked off and was seen to put a leaflet into the door of one of the flats. She was about to put another one into another flat, when one of the police officers arrested her for conduct likely to cause a breach of the peace. She resisted arrest and sat on the pavement. he was eventually carried to the police car and conveyed to the police station. when arrested, 95 leaflets, similar to the ones which she had handed to the police constables, were taken from her. She admitted that she had drafted part of the leaflet in question.
It is necessary now to make some reference to Colchester and the Director of Public Prosecutions. This appellant is, and has been for many years, a convinced pacifist. She is opposed to any use of force, whether by the military or anybody else. She has campaigned in support of her views and on occasions she has come into conflict with the law over them. She is opposed to the presence of the armed forces in Northern Ireland as a means of bringing peace to that troubled area. She helped with the drafting of this leaflet, which was intended to be given to soldiers.
It purports to be published by an organisation called The British withdrawal from Northern Ireland Campaign, and an address in the London area is given. It is headed "Some Information for British Soldiers". It starts off by giving what purport to be two quotations from statements made by British soldiers who have already deserted from the Army. It then goes on as follows:"We are aware that there are British soldiers who are leaving the army, or who want to because of British policy in N. Ireland. We are glad about this and hope many more will do so. We have therefore compiled this fact-sheet giving information about various methods of quitting the British armed forces, hoping it may prove useful."
Then it goes on to the first heading "Going Absent without Leave" is divided into four numbered paragraphs. The first has a sub-heading "Sweden", and purports to give information as to what a soldier, going absent without leave, can expect to get if he goes to Sweden. He is told that on arrival he will get legal advice and social help. Then comes a paragraph with sub-heading "Eire". Readers of the leaflet are advised that it langerous to go to Sire as a deserter. The next paragraph has a sub-heading "Britain". It points out the difficulties which may arise if a solider goes absent without leave in Britain. He may, for example, find difficulty over employment and accommodate, and will have to keep moving in order to avoid the police. The final sub-heading is "Other Countries" and the readers are warned that as far as is known, other countries are not offering sanctuary for British deserting soldiers. All this is useful information for a soldier who is contemplating deserting in order to avoid service in Northern Ireland.
On the other side of the leaflet comes a paragraph headed "Conscientious Objection", and points out that soldiers nowadays can get themselves discharged from the Army on conscientious grounds and indicates what the Army will not accept as conscientious grounds – another useful piece of information. Then there is heading "Discharge on other Grounds". Under it comes information setting out in detail the present regulations whereby those who have not been warned of a posting to Northern Ireland or else where overseas can buy themselves out of the Army. It is clear from this section of the leaflet that those who drafted it are very familiar indeed with Army Regulations. They are not ignorant people who do not know how the Army works.
Then comes a paragraph with a heading "Open Refusal to be Posted to Northern Ireland". In our judgment this is the part of the leaflet which is the most mischievous. It is in these terms: "A soldier who publicly stated that he refused to serve in N. Ireland, whatever the consequences, would be taking a courageous stand. He would be setting an example to other soldiers: strengthening their resolve to resist the Government's disastrous policy. Better still, if a group of soldiers made this announcement simultaneously it would make a great impact on public opinion, both inside and outside the army. Such an action could lead to Court Martial and imprisonment. it soliders who believe, as we do, that it is wrong for British "troops to be in N. Ireland are asked to consider whether it is better to be killed for a cause you do not believe in or to be imprisoned for refusing to take part in the conflict. All soldiers who intend to refuse to be posted to N. Ireland are asked to inform the BRITISH WITHDRAWAL FROM NORTHERN IRELAND CAMPAIGN, so that their brave action can receive as much publicity and have as much effect as possible. We who are distributing this Fact-Sheet to you hope that, by one means or another, you will avoid taking part in the killing in Northern Ireland."
This leaflet is the clearest incitement to mutiny and to desertion. As such, it is a most mischievous document. It is not only mischievous but it is wicked. This Court is not concerned in any way with the political background against which this leaflet was distributed. What it is concerned with is the likely effects upon young soldiers aged 18, 19 or 20, some of whom may be immature emotionally and of limited political understanding It is particularly concerned about young soldiers who either come from Ireland or who have family connections with Ireland: there are probably a large number of them in the British Army. These young soldiers are encouraged to desert on learning of a posting to Northern Ireland and to mutiny. If they mutiny, they are liable to be sentenced by Court Martial to a very long term of imprisonment, and if they desert, they must expect to get a sentence of at least twelve months' detention. For mature women like this appellant to go round military establishments distributing leaflets of this kind amounts to a bad case of seducing soldiers from both their duty and allegiance
There is, however, a history to this leaflet, which we find a disturbing one. The appellant is not the only person who has been distributing it. She was helped at Warminster by at least one other woman, probably more, and a man. The evidence established that a friend of this appellant in Scotland had been distributing is leaflet in military establishments there.
Some time in the late summer 1973 the appellant herself distributed these pamphlets at Colchester, wiiich is a military centre. She was seen there by the Colchester...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R v Tolley
...decision of this court reported only in the C.L.R Vol. 76 at page 636, which appears to be in conflict with Clarke. It is the case of Arrowsmith. This was again a case of a young woman with a history of mental disturbance and anti-social behaviour who was initially put on probation for an o......
-
R (Hicks) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
...it is used means more … than political opposition." I respectfully agree with the approach of the High Court. 30 Joyce was applied in R v Arrowsmith [1975] QB 678. It was held, at page 687H, that a soldier owes allegiance to the Crown, whether he has taken the oath of allegiance or not. T......
-
Chee Soon Juan v PP
...SLR 552 (refd) PP v You Xin [2007] SGDC 79 (refd) Quak Siew Hock David v PP [1998] 3 SLR (R) 807; [1999] 1 SLR 533 (refd) R v Arrowsmith [1975] QB 678 (refd) R v Bowsher [1973] RTR 202 (refd) R v Cancoil Thermal Corp and Parkinson (1986) 52 CR (3d) 188 (not folld) Surrey County Council v Ba......
-
The Attorney General of Saint Christopher and Nevis v Dr. Denzil Douglas
...v Cleary (1992) 109 ALR 577; Hicks v Ruddock [2007] 2 LRC 560; Hewitt v Smith (Cause No. 198 of 2013, 9th August 2013); R v Arrowsmith [1975] 1 QB 678; Dabdoub v Vaz CA 45 & 47 of 2008 (delivered 13th March 2008, unreported); Green and Joseph v Saint Jean and Skerrit DOMHCVAP2012/0001 (del......