R v Baker ; R v Ward
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE ROCH |
| Judgment Date | 31 March 1999 |
| Neutral Citation | [1999] EWCA Crim J0331-7 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1999] EWCA Crim J0331-77 |
| Docket Number | Case No: 98/5352 & 5450/X3 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
| Date | 31 March 1999 |
[1999] EWCA Crim J0331-7
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL CRIMINAL DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2
Lord Justice Roch
Mr Justice Richards and
His Honour Judge Colston Qc
(Sitting as a Judge of the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division)
Case No: 98/5352 & 5450/X3
MISS A. PINTO appeared on behalf of the Crown
MISS HIGGINS appeared on behalf of the Appellant Baker
MISS C. MARSH appeared on behalf of the Appellant Ward
( )
Wednesday, 31st March 1999
On the 23rd July 1998 at the Croydon Crown Court the appellants were each convicted of possessing a firearm while committing a Schedule 1 offence, Count 1 of the indictment, and robbery, count 2 of the Indictment. On the 14th August HHJ Pullinger, who had presided over their trial, sentenced Ward to Life Imprisonment on each count concurrent with a fixed term of 9 years, applying s. 2 of the Crime Sentences Act 1997. On the 7th September the judge sentenced Baker to 9 years imprisonment on each count concurrent.
The appellants appeal against conviction and sentence with leave of the single judge.
It was not disputed that on the 16th February 1998 the appellants committed a robbery at the Halford Superstore in Croydon. During the course of that robbery an imitation pistol was used and two security bags containing the previous day's takings were taken, one of which contained cash and the other which contained bank cheques. The appellant Baker managed to leave the store but was arrested outside the store in the car park. The appellant Ward was prevented from leaving the store by store staff and was also arrested.
The defence advanced by the appellants at their trial was that they had not acted deliberately and voluntarily but had been subjected to duress. The issues that the jury had to decide were all linked to the question whether this was a case where the appellants might have been acting under duress.
The prosecution's case rested on the evidence of the store manager Mr Gordon and the assistant store manager Mr Woodnutt. They had arrived at the store before 8 o'clock in the morning. At about 8.15 a.m., at a time when the store was still closed the two appellants dressed in suits appeared at the doors of the store.
Mr Gordon had asked them what they wanted. The appellant Ward had claimed that he and Baker were CID Officers investigating a fraud on the company owning the store and produced some of that company's receipts in a clear plastic bag. Mr Gordon believed what he was told and allowed the appellants into the store. Mr Woodnutt told the jury that both men appeared confident and cheery when they entered the store. Mr Woodnutt made telephone calls to other branches of the company to try to ascertain where the receipts that Ward had with him had come from. Mr Gordon returned to his desk to work. Suddenly the appellant Baker pointed a gun at Mr Gordon. Both appellants started to shout and pushed Mr Gordon and Mr Woodnutt into an office. Mr Gordon was able to operate a panic button. The appellants demanded money and Mr Gordon believing at that time that the gun was real unlocked the safe and handed over the two security bags. The appellant Baker then produced a pair of handcuffs and pushed the gun into Mr Woodnutt's back saying he would shoot Mr Woodnutt in the spine. Baker then put the gun to Mr Woodnutt's neck at which point Mr Woodnutt realised that the gun was not metal and must be an imitation. Realising that Mr Woodnutt lashed out at Ward aiming several punches at Ward's face and chasing Ward to the door of the store. Baker evidently reached the door of the store before Ward did and escaped through it. Mr Gordon also went to the door of the store and was able to trap Ward's leg in the door and to hold him there until police officers arrived.
When Mr Gordon was cross-examined he accepted that there were times when Baker had appeared to be uneasy whilst in the store. Mr Woodnutt when he was cross-examined accepted that Baker may have been hesitant at some time during the incident but he maintained both appellants had been confident overall in their manner.
Following their arrest both appellants were interviewed and made no reply to the questions they were asked.
The defence of the appellants was that they had involved themselves in the supply of the drug cannabis. They had failed to pay for one batch of cannabis which they had bought for £10,000. This resulted in their being subjected to threats of violence to themselves and to their families, and, in the case of Baker, being subjected to actual violence on one occasion on the 10th February, six days prior to the robbery. The night before the robbery they had received a visit from one of the men who had been threatening them and who had taken part in the attack on Baker on the 10th, who told them to rob Halford's stores. He supplied them with a briefcase containing receipts from the stores an imitation firearm and handcuffs. The following morning that person had followed them to the store in a yellow van and had kept in contact with them by mobile phone.
In a little more detail the evidence of Ward was that he had met Baker in 1995 and eventually went into business with him dealing in cannabis. They obtained their supplies from a man called Richard Tonbridge. There was no doubt that Tonbridge was a man who dealt in drugs; he having convictions for such offences. Ward said that they sold up to 3 kilos per week and worked on a 7 day credit. Prior to the robbery Richard Tonbridge had offered them 6 kilos of cannabis at £10,000 which they accepted on a 14 day credit basis. One of their customers took half of that amount at a price of £6,000 to be paid within 7 days. That sum was not paid and that man had disappeared. Consequently they had been unable to pay Tonbridge. They had received some payments by selling parts of the remainder of the consignment piecemeal. Ward borrowed £4,500 from a Peter Lovibond and had paid that sum to Tonbridge.
It was Ward's evidence that on the Thursday prior to the robbery four men came to Ward's flat and threatened to kill him and Baker if they did not come up with the money. Those men had slapped him, Ward, around and had taken Baker's address book which contained the names and addresses of Baker's family and friends. Baker at that time was living in another flat in the same building as Ward. Ward told the jury that he was terrified and took the threats seriously. He begged for more time in which to pay but was told that the money had to be paid by the Sunday evening.
During the Sunday there had been calls to Baker's mobile phone. At 6.30 one of the four men came to Ward's flat. Baker was there and the man handed Baker a briefcase containing the handcuffs, the imitation gun, gloves, receipts, a radio, a knife and an identity card. The man said that the appellants had to rob Halford's store. Ward told the jury that he felt that if he did not do what the man said then men would petrol bomb his mother's house and do something to Baker's children.
The next morning at 8 a.m. they had left the house in Ward's car followed by the man in a yellow truck. That man had signalled to them where they should park, and as they walked to the store the man had spoken to them over a mobile telephone.
Ward said that he had made no comment in interview because he didn't know how the people who were demanding payment from him were going to react to not getting their money. He still feared for himself and his family. He had known what he was doing was unlawful. He had not alerted the police for the same reason. Richard Tonbridge was not a violent man and had never threatened them. He accepted in cross-examination that he had had the option to call the police but said they would not have been able to protect his family 24 hours a day.
Peter Lovibond was called as part of Ward's case. He said he had known Ward for 10 or 11 years. Between Christmas 1997 and January 1998 Ward had telephoned him and said that he and Baker were in financial difficulties over drugs and need £10,000. Mr Lovibond had lent them £4,500. Mr Lovibond was a man who smoked cannabis and had himself been involved in supplying drugs. He had convictions for such an offence, for handling stolen property and for shortening the barrel of a shotgun.
Mr Baker gave evidence along similar lines. He told the jury he had met Richard Tonbridge in 1996. Tonbridge was an easy going man. At first they met socially and then Baker began to take supplies of cannabis from him. He said that a customer, Nicholas Summersbee, had defaulted on £6,000. In October 1997 he had received a telephone call at the address where he was then living with his wife and children. He was told that he had "messed with the wrong people" and that they had taken over the debt. He was told that they knew where his children went to school. He was terrified. There were further calls some of which his wife took. He didn't tell his wife about the debt but he moved out of their home to live in a flat above Ward. On one occasion his wife delivered an envelope that she had received for him which contained dead matches and a note telling him to pay up. He continued to receive threatening calls on his mobile phone.
At Christmas 1997 he had met Tonbridge who said the matter was out of his hands. In January 1998 he and Ward had borrowed £4,500 which they had paid to Tonbridge. On the 3rd January four men had appeared at Ward's flat, whilst he was there. The men said that their time was running out and that they had to pay up. On the 10th February he had gone to his wife's address to check that his wife and family were all right. As he was leaving he...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R v Hasan (Aytach)
...reported British authority until the Court of Appeal (Roch LJ, Richards J and Judge Colston QC) gave judgment in R v Baker and Ward [1999] 2 Cr App R 335. The facts were very similar to these in R v Ali, above, save that the appellants claimed that they had been specifically instructed to r......
-
R v Hasan (Aytach)
... ... 411 Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland v Lynch [ 1975 ]A C 653 ;[ 1975 ] 2 WLR 641 ;[ 1975 ] 1 All ER 913 , HL(NI) R v Baker [ 1999 ] 2 Cr App R 335 ,C A R v Croydon Justices, Ex p Dean [ 1993 ]Q B 769 ;[ 1993 ] 3 WLR 198 ;[ 1993 ] 3 All ER 129 ,D C R v Fitzpatrick [ ... Doorson v The Netherlands ( 1996 ) 22 EHRR 330 R v Hinchclie [ 2002 ] EWCACrim 837 ,CA R v Maynard (unreported) 2 April 1998 ,C A R v Ward ( 1998 ) Archbold News (Issue 8 ) 3 APPEAL against conviction On 9 February 2001 in the Central Criminal Court before Judge Paget QC and a ... ...
-
R v Sohail Namji
...of this objectionably watered-down version. 8 Mr Keleher's submission is based upon the observations of this Court in Baker and Ward [1999] 2 Cr App R 335, which, it appears, was not physically available to the Court at the time of the discussion before the summing-up began, although it app......
-
R v Donna McDonald
...R v Howe & Ors [1987] 85 Cr App R 65). ] 17 The authority which founds the judicial studies board specimen direction is Baker & Ward [1999] 2 Cr App R 335. The facts are sufficiently dissimilar as not to prove in this instance helpful, but the jury posed to the judge a question which reads ......
-
Exemplum Habemus: Reflections on the Judicial Studies Board's Specimen Directions
...proveequally arduous.83 The House of Lords’ judgment in Webber [2004] 1 WLR 404 at [27] lendsfurther support to this proposition.84 [1999] 2 Cr App R 335.85 [2003] EWCA Crim 1170 at [19].86 19 June 1998, Transcript No. 97/6746/X4.87 [2000] 1 Cr App R 45 esp. at 57, per Rose LJ.The Journal o......
-
Allowing a Defence to Those Who Commit Crime Under Coercive Control
...was successful as he failed to appreciate theviolent nature of the shop lifting gang he had joined.67. Overruling R v Baker and Ward (1999) 2 Cr App R 335 where the Court of Appeal held that the pressure must be to coerce theaccused into committing a criminal offence of the type he is being......
-
Allowing a Defence to Those Who Commit Crime Under Coercive Control
...was successful as he failed to appreciate theviolent nature of the shop lifting gang he had joined.67. Overruling R v Baker and Ward (1999) 2 Cr App R 335 where the Court of Appeal held that the pressure must be to coerce theaccused into committing a criminal offence of the type he is being......
-
Duress by indirect threats R v Brandford [2016] EWCA Crim 1794, [2017] 4 WLR 17, Court of Appeal
...available as a defence to all crimes, some very serious offencessuch as robbery (Sharp;Cole [1994] Crim LR 582; Baker & Ward [1999] 2 Cr App R 335),aggravated burglary (Hasan), hijacking (Abdul-Hussain [1999] Crim LR 570; Safi & Others[2003] EWCA Crim 1809, [2004] 1 Cr App R 14), firearms o......