R v Beckford (Anthony)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE NEILL |
| Judgment Date | 21 December 1994 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1994] EWCA Crim J1221-24 |
| Docket Number | No. 94/4237/Y5 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
| Date | 21 December 1994 |
[1994] EWCA Crim J1221-24
Before: Lord Justice Neill Mr Justice Alliott and Mr Justice Rix
No. 94/4237/Y5
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL CRIMINAL DIVISION
Computer Aided Transcription by John Larking, Chancery House, Chancery Lane, London WC2 Telephone 071–404 7464 (Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
Wednesday 21 December 1994
On 21 June 1994 in the Central Criminal Court the appellant Ian Beckford was convicted of causing death by careless driving when under the influence of drink or drugs. Sentence was then adjourned. On 12 July 1994 the appellant was sentenced to two years imprisonment and was disqualified from driving for a period of seven years.
He now appeals against conviction by leave of the single judge.
The Facts
At about 5 am on 13 November 1992 the appellant was driving a Mini Metro car (BLB 964Y) when the car collided with the square concrete block at the end of the crash wall and barrier on the south side of the eastern approach to the Bow fly-over. The Bow fly-over is a dual carriageway in east London with two traffic lanes in each direction. The concrete block is adjacent to the side refuge which separates the slip road and the main carriageway on the south eastern side of the fly-over.
Dionne Thompson, who was a passenger in the front seat of the car, was killed in the collision.
The owner of the car was Mr Theo Campbell. He had bought it in September 1992 and in October he had left it with Mr Malcolm Small to carry out repairs. On the evening of 12 November Mr Small and the appellant went in the car to two clubs. They were accompanied by two young women Miss Thompson and Miss Sharon Bubb. On leaving the second club Mr Small walked home and the car was left with the appellant. The appellant was driving the car home with Miss Thompson in the front passenger seat and with Miss Bubb and another man, Mr Cecil Campbell, in the back when the collision occurred.
An ambulance was called to the scene of the crash and the occupants of the car were taken to hospital. There the appellant received treatment for a large cut which he had sustained and which required 37 stitches. Both the ambulance men who attended the scene said that the appellant was suffering from shock. According to the Doctor who examined him at the hospital he said that he had had "a few pints of alcohol".
The police officers who first attended the scene in response to an emergency call were PC Kyte and PC James. We shall have to refer to their evidence in more detail later. At this stage it is sufficient to note:
(a) That after speaking to the appellant and noticing the smell of intoxicating liquor on his breath PC Kyte arrested the appellant as being unfit to drive through drink or drugs.
(b) That PC James looked at the steering mechanism and thought that there was some damage to the steering lock. He was heard to remark "the ignition barrel's been done."
A little later PC Kendrick arrived at the scene. He examined the car and the road surface. He found no braking marks on the road, however, which might have indicated that the steering wheel had locked, nor did he find any marks which might have indicated that the car had mounted the curb or any other signs of anything which might have contributed to the collision. He did not check the steering lock. Following his examination he gave instructions for the removal of the vehicle to the garage company which was usually instructed by the police. The vehicle was later removed to a warehouse occupied by the garage company.
On 19 November 1992 the vehicle was inspected by Dr Lambourne of the Metropolitan Police Laboratory. Dr Lambourne was a specialist in the investigation of road accidents and had worked at the Police Laboratory for 20 years. From his examination he reached the following conclusions:
(a) That the impact had occurred directly to the front and to the near side of the vehicle, that is, directly in front of the passenger in the front seat.
(b) That the impact speed had been between 35 mph and 45 mph.
(c) That before the impact the car had been travelling in the nearside lane, that is, in the lane at the beginning of the slip road leading down from the fly-over.
(d) That there was damage to the front offside wheel which indicated that before the impact the vehicle had struck the kerb between the slip road and the main road over the fly-over; this damage supported his conclusion that the vehicle approached the barrier from the slip road rather than from the main road.
On the following day, 20 November, the car was inspected by PC Croucher, who was an advanced accident investigator. At the time of his examination he did not have the car key in his possession because the key had been retained at the police station. He did notice, however, that the ignition switch appeared to have been forced and that where the key entered the ignition switch the switch had been mangled. Nevertheless he found that the internal mechanism of the ignition barrel was intact, though he did not take it apart. He had not been told beforehand of the comment by PC James on 13 November that the "ignition barrel had been done". He also found that owing to the extensive damage to the vehicle it was impossible to remove the steering which had locked solid.
Mr Beckford was not charged until 10 May 1993 when summonses were issued against him. By that time, however, the garage had made arrangements for the disposal of the car and it had been scrapped. It was discovered later that it was scrapped on 17 December 1992. It is clear that the police had not given any authority for the car to be destroyed but on the other hand they had given no instructions for it to be preserved. It was the practice of the garage company to dispose of vehicles unless they were asked to keep them.
Mr Beckford was committed for trial on 17 September 1993.
The Trial
The case for the prosecution at the trial was that Mr Beckford, having spent an evening with his friends and having during the evening consumed a quantity of alcohol had probably fallen asleep when driving home and that it was in these circumstances that the car had mounted the kerb between the slip road and the main road and had collided with the concrete block at the end of the barrier.
The case for Mr Beckford on the other hand was that there was no or no sufficient evidence that he was unfit to drive because of drink and that the most probable explanation was that the vehicle had crashed because the steering lock had locked in a straight ahead position. It was also Mr Beckford's case that just before the impact the car had been on the main road and not on the slip road, and that because of the locking of the steering wheel Mr Beckford had been unable to steer the vehicle round the bend at the beginning of the fly-over. Mr Beckford did not give evidence at the trial, however, and the suggestion that the steering had locked was based in the main on the evidence of Mr Ronald Harrison, a consultant automobile engineer and motor claims assessor of many years experience, who was called on behalf of the Defence.
At the outset of the trial counsel for Mr Beckford submitted that the proceedings should be stayed as an abuse of the process of the court or alternatively that all the prosecution evidence should be excluded under section 78 of The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (the 1984 Act). It was submitted that if the car had not been scrapped it might have provided vital evidence for the defence, and that accordingly it was unfair for the prosecution to be allowed to proceed with the case when the defence had had no opportunity to examine the car or to discover whether there was a defect in it.
The judge rejected the submission, taking the view that Mr Beckford would not suffer serious prejudice if the trial continued and that it was for the jury to decide the issue.
The trial then proceeded. When PC Kyte came to give evidence, however, counsel for Mr Beckford made a further submission. He referred to a number of PC Kyte's questions to Mr Beckford; including the following:
"Q. Have you been drinking?
A. Yes.
Q. How much have you had to drink?
A. A few pints.
Q. How many?
A. Three."
Counsel submitted that these questions had been asked in breach of paragraph 10(1) of the Code of Practice and that they should be excluded under section 76 or section 78 of the 1984 Act. The judge rejected this submission. He expressed his conclusion as follows:
"I do not find that there were grounds to suspect that an offence had been committed until the defendant said that he had had three drinks, three pints; and it is from the answers really that he should have cautioned him about the drink."
Later in the trial, at the conclusion of the evidence for the Crown, it was submitted that there was no case to answer. It was said that there was insufficient evidence that Mr Beckford was unfit to drive through drink and insufficient evidence that he was driving without due care and attention. This submission too was rejected by the judge.
As has already been mentioned Mr Beckford himself did not give evidence at the trial. Mr Harrison, however, gave evidence as to the conclusions which he had reached having looked at the statements from the witnesses and having examined the photographs of the scene which had been taken by the police. Mr Harrison of course had not been able to examine the vehicle which had been destroyed long before he was instructed. He had, however, produced a detailed report dated 9 January 1994 and a further report dated 24 April 1994. We can summarise the main features of Mr Harrison's evidence as follows:
...To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Queen v William James Fulton
...unfair or oppressive as to threaten the stability of the verdict of the court martial.” [52] As pointed out by Neill LJ in Beckford [1996] 1 Cr App R 94 the constitutional principle which underlines the jurisdiction to stay criminal proceedings is that the courts have the power and the duty......
-
R v Martin (Alan)
...9, 16 that the law on abuse of process is still in a stage of development: see also Neill L.J.'s remarks to the same effect in Reg v. Beckford (Anthony) [1996] 1 Cr.App.R. 94. In ruling that there had been no abuse of process, the Judge Advocate said: "I am satisfied that the prosecution ha......
-
Danny Mansfield v DPP
...Court ex parte Bennett [1994] AC 42 and the second of the two principal types of abuse identified by this court in R v Beckford [1996] 1 Cr App R 94. 5 The District Judge took the view that, notwithstanding his reservations concerning Nembhard and Woolls, he was bound by those authorities.......
-
Bassalat's (Issam) Application (Leave stage) and in the matter of decisions of The Public Prosecution Service and District Judge (Magistrates Courts) Ranaghan
...of the committal test it should go to the trial judge. [31] The meaning of abuse of process is well trammelled ground. In Beckford [1996] 1 Cr App R 94, Neill LJ said (at p. 100) that: “The constitutional principle which underlies the jurisdiction to stay proceedings is that the courts have......
-
Subject Index
...86R v Barton (1986) 85 Cr App R 5 .. 26, 27–28R v Bashir (1983) 77 Cr App R 59 ................ 26R v Beckford [1996] 1 Cr App R 94, CA.....................................................159–61, 62R v Beckles (Keith Anderson) [2004] EWCACrim 2766, [2005] 1 All ER 705 .... 211–216R v Béland......
-
Table of Cases
.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111, 123R v Bates [2006] EWCA Crim 1395. . . . . . . . . .245R v Beckford [1996] 1 Cr App R 94. . . . . . . . . . . 84R v Benton, unreported, 24 February 2000,CA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6......
-
Improperly Obtained Evidence in the Commonwealth: Lessons for England and Wales?
...RvS[2006] EWCA Crim 756, [2006] 2 Cr App R 23 (p. 341).45 RvTaylor (1994) 98 Cr App R 361 (decision of 1993).46 RvBeckford [1996] 1 Cr App R 94.47 RvLatif [1996] 1 WLR 104 at 112. In appropriate cases ‘the judge must weigh in the balance thepublic interest in ensuring that those that are ch......
-
Lost and Destroyed Evidence: The Search for a Principled Approach to Abuse of Process
...and Investigations Act 1996 (Code of Practice)(No. 2) Order 1997 (SI 1997 No. 1033).2 [2001] EWHC Admin 130, [2001] 1 WLR 1293.3 [1996] 1 Cr App R 94, 160 THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EVIDENCE & PROOFLOST AND DESTROYED EVIDENCE: A PRINCIPLED APPROACH TO ABUSE OF PROCESSmake arrangements for......