R v Birtles
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE |
| Judgment Date | 19 May 1969 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1969] EWCA Crim J0519-6 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
| Docket Number | No. 1053/69 |
| Date | 19 May 1969 |
[1969] EWCA Crim J0519-6
The Lord Chief Justice of England (Lord Parker)
Lord Justice Megaw
and
Mr. Justice Nield
No. 1053/69
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
MR. D.M. SAVILL, Q.C., and MR. M. HARGAN appeared on behalf of the Appellant.
MR. R. LYONS, Q.C., and MISS WOOTLIFF appeared on behalf of the Crown.
In March of last year at West Riding Quarter Sessions, this Appellant pleaded guilty to burglary and also to carrying an immitation firearm with intent to commit burglary. He was sentenced to three years and two years' imprisonment consecutive, in other words, five years in all. He now applies for an extension of time and for leave to appeal against sentence. Originally he asked for leave to appeal against conviction also, but Mr. Savill on his behalf before this Court has not continued that application. In the course of argument the extension of time was allowed, and the Court gave leave to appeal against sentence, and treats this as the hearing of the appeal.
The facts of this matter, so far as the offence is concerned, are very short. On the evening of 8th January of 1968 this Appellant, together with another man who had been recruited that very day for the purpose, broke into a sub-post office at Letwell in South Yorkshire. It was a crime of a type only too prevalent these days. They wore stocking masks and the Appellant had this immitation pistol with him at the ready. In fact the police were waiting and closed in on them, and thereupon the Appellant thrust the pistol into the face of one of the police officers and pulled the trigger. Then notwithstanding that the police were present both of them made their escape, but the Appellant was picked up in the early hours of the following morning, and the man with him later gave himself up. In a statement made to the police in these proceedings the Appellant said this, "I am sorry about the gun. It was instinct that made me pull the trigger, but I'm thankful it were not a real gun. I was going to get a Luger but I'm glad I did not because the same thing might have happened. Well, it would have done natural because of the fright of seeing the officers coming downstairs".
This Appellaht is a man of 27 with no less than 15 previous convictions, though it is to be observed that the highest sentence he has got heretofore was one of 18 months.
Now if the matter rested there, no one could suggest that there was any ground whatever for interfering with this sentence. Indeed, for the type of crime involved, it was today a lenient sentence.
The matter however does not rest there. There was an informer concerned, a man called Oates and that is how it came about the police were on the premises. Later when the Appellant was in prison, Oates and another man were charged with housebreaking, and it was then that the informer, Oates, gave an interview to a reporter, in which he made a number of allegations concerning the police officers involved in the present case, and in particular one police officer who has been throughout the proceedings referred to as "Ken". It is of course well known that it is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R v O'Brien (Patrick)
...is a Police informer should or should not be disclosed is a very sensitive one. It was dealt with in this Court in 1969 in the case of Birtles, which is reported in 53 Criminal Appeal Reports at page 469. Dealing quite generally with the proper attitude of the prosecutor and counsel in this......
-
Maycock et Al v Commissioner of Police
...the question of guilty or not guilty.’ Brannan v. Peek [1948] 1 KB 68 , Browning J.W.H. Watson (Rochester) Ltd. [1953] 1 WLR 1172, Reg v. Birtles [1969] 1 WLR 1047, illustrate that this is the practice of the courts, even when strongly critical of police methods in the obtaining of evide......
- Public Prosecutor v Chibuike Reginald Ukaegbu (W/Nigeria)
-
R v Sang (on Appeal from HM Court of Appeal (Criminal Division))
...logically be possible. The degree of guilt may be modified by the inducement and that can appropriately be reflected in the sentence—see Reg. v. Birtles [1969] 53 Cr.App.R. 469 and Browning v. Watson [1953] 1 W.L.R. 1172 where Lord Goddard C.J. pointed out that the court could even grant a......
-
Secondary Liability In The Criminal Law
...will not be liable if they participate in an offence already laid on in order to mitigate the consequence of an offence: R v. Birtles [1969] 2 All E.R. 1131. And in Williams v. Director of Public Prosecutions (1993) 98 Cr.App.R. 209, it was held that police officers had not encouraged a cri......
-
The governance of covert investigation.
...viii. (70) See RIPA s 27(1). (71) For general approval of the use of informers, subject to prohibitions on entrapment, see R v Birtles [1969] 1 WLR 1047, 1049-50 (Lord Parker CJ for Lord Parker CJ, Megaw LJ and Nield J) (also defining acceptable limits on the conduct of participating inform......
-
THE DISCRETION TO EXCLUDE ILLEGALLY OR IMPROPERLY OBTAINED EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL CASES
...with the police, becomes involved in the commission of an offence with a view to obtaining evidence against the accused. See R v Birtles[1969] 1 WLR 1047. 5 This might have been in issue as Goh was not a police officer. 6 [1991] 3 MLJ 216 at p 218. 7 To the question raised by the Criminal D......