R v Barnes
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE |
| Judgment Date | 30 November 1970 |
| Neutral Citation | [1970] EWCA Crim J1130-1 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
| Docket Number | No. 1928/B/70 |
| Date | 30 November 1970 |
[1970] EWCA Crim J1130-1
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
The Lord Chief Justice of England (Lord Parker)
Mr. Justice Ashworth
and
Mr. Justice Cantley
No. 1928/B/70
MR. J. HAZAN, Q. C. MR. A. TROUP appeared as Counsel for the Appellant.
MR. D. FARQUHARSON appeared as Counsel for the Crown.
On the 26th February of this year at the Central Criminal Court, this Appellant was convicted of robbery, and in addition of three offences of burglary; he was sentenced to a total of six years' imprisonment. He now appeals against that sentence by leave of the single Judge, and in addition renews an application for leave to appeal against conviction which was refused by the single Judge.
It is convenient to deal in the first instance with the application for leave to appeal against conviction. The matter arose in this way: on the 29th August of last year at about 1.15 a.m. two men threatened the night watchman at the Londex Electrics factory in Penge; they tied him up and they stole a quantity of copper and brass and some money and other items to a value of about £630. As to the burglaries, it appears that on the night of the 10th/11th September a school in Dacres Road, South East London, was broken into, and again a quantity of metal, copper sheeting for the most part, worth about £65 was stolen. On the next night, the night of the 11th/12th September there were two breakings-in to two classrooms in different blocks of Sedghill School in South East London. A number of articles were taken, including again a quantity of copper, brass and solder. The robbery and burglaries were admitted, the sole question was whether this Appellant had been a party thereto. On all the premises concerned finger, palm and thumb prints were found which were clearly the prints of one single person, and according to the evidence, they were the prints of this Appellant.
A Detective Sergeant went to the Channel Islands to arrest the Appellant; the Appellant was brought back and at Penge Police Station, according to the Detective Sergeant, he made in effect a full confession. He was asked: "Who was the other man with you?", to which the Appellant replied: "I can't tell you, I'll get hammered if I do. (Q) Whose idea was it? (A) We were given the wrong story. We didn't know the old boy was going to be there. After we got in through the door we were wandering around. I heard somebody sweeping. We pulled handkerchiefs over our faces and just stood in the open so he could see us. We didn't want to frighten him. (Q) Who tied him up? (A) I did, but it wasn't tight. I didn't want to hurt him. (Q) What did you do with the metal, that is the metal that was stolen? (A) It's been sold and I'm not saying where". – so much for the robbery. As regards the burglary he was asked: "There was a school broken into at Sedghill Road on the night of the 11th/12th September" – the Defendant then according to the Officer said: "Yes, I might as well clear it all up. I did that one and another school in Dacres Road. (Q) How did you get into Sedghill School? (A) Through a skylight, (Q) What happened to the property? (A) I don't know. It's all gone now". No identification parade at that stage was held by reason, of course, of this alleged confession, But some three months later in February of this year, at the request of the Appellant, an identification parade was held at which the night watchman failed to identify the Appellant.
The Appellant gave evidence; his defence was a complete denial, he said he had never been to the Londex factory, that he had never broken into the schools, and as regards the finger print evidence, he admitted that the impressions were his prints, but he alleged that they were forgeries deliberately planted. In addition he denied ever making the confession to the Detective Sergeant.
Pausing there, there would appear to be no reason whatever to interfere with the conviction; there was ample evidence, indeed it might be said to be an open and shut case, and no criticism is or could be made of the summing-up. In fact the Jury convicted in 16 minutes.
The matter, however, does not end there, because complaint is made of what can only be described as an outburst by the Trial Judge in the absence of the Jury half way through the Prosecution case to the effect that the Appellant was plainly guilty, and that the time of the Court was being wasted. After asking the Jury to retire, the Trial Judge addressed defending Counsel thus: "I think it right I should tell you in the presence and hearing of your client that I take a very serious view indeed of hopeless cases, without the shadow of a defence, being contested at public expense. May I tell you, that last month an estimate was made of the time that would be taken by the cases then remaining to be tried; just under two thousand "judge days was the estimate. That means people are either on bail or in custody awaiting trial, and one of the reasons why there is so much is because a number of cases such as this are being contested without the slightest possibility of success, at public expense. I take a very serious view of it indeed. I would like you to consider the position during the adjournment".
Pausing there, one has of course great sympathy with all Trial Judges today when, under Legal Aid, a number of quite hopeless cases are being contested, thus clogging the machine, with the result that trials of many cases of greater merit are seriously delayed. However, as the law stands, it is an accused's right to have Counsel under Legal Aid to defend him should he elect to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
001 HUN SENG vs PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
...been guilty of an offence (see R v Forde [1923] 2 KB 400; R v Murphy [1965] VR 187; R v Chiron [1980] 1 NSWLR 218; R v Barnes (1970) 55 Cr App R 100; Sau Soo Kim v PP [1975] 2 MLJ 134; and Lo Kim Peng & Ors v PP [1979] 1 MLJ In a very recent decision of the Court of Appeal in Shaiful Azmi b......
-
Lewis v R
...was receiving legal aid and not paying for his counsel. We should quote the comment of Lord Parker of Waddington, C.J. in Barnes (1970) 55 Cr.App.R.100 in response to the trial judge who was critical of hopeless cases being defended “at public expense” when Lord Parker said at page 104: “P......
-
R v Salman Kartal and Others
...in his own way: ( Hulusi and Purvis, 58 Cr App R 378; see also Frixou [1998] Crim LR 352 and R v Roncoli [1998] Crim LR 584) . In Barnes 55 Cr App R 100, Lord Parker CJ said: 'Just as interruptions by a trial judge, making it impossible for defending counsel to do justice to the defence, wi......
-
R v Salman Kartal and Others
...in his own way: ( Hulusi and Purvis, 58 Cr App R 378; see also Frixou [1998] Crim LR 352 and R v Roncoli [1998] Crim LR 584). In Barnes 55 Cr App R 100, Lord Parker CJ said: 'Just as interruptions by a trial judge, making it impossible for defending counsel to do justice to the defence, wil......