R v Blenkinsop
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE EVANS |
| Judgment Date | 12 July 1994 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1994] EWCA Crim J0712-23 |
| Docket Number | 92/4417/W4 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
| Date | 12 July 1994 |
[1994] EWCA Crim J0712-23
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
Before: Lord Justice Evans Mr Justice Curtis and Mr Justice Morison
92/4417/W4
MR. D. HALE appeared on behalf of the CROWN.
MISS I. FOREHALL appeared on behalf of the APPELLANT.
(As approved)
Tuesday, 12th July 1994.
David Richard Blenkinsop was one of 24 persons charged at Mold Crown Court with the offence of violent disorder contrary to section 2 (1) of the Public Order Act, 1986. Four pleaded guilty to that offence and three pleaded guilty to the alternative charge of threatening behaviour. Of the seventeen who pleaded not guilty, only the appellant was convicted by the jury of the offence of violent disorder. Four were convicted of the alternative charge of threatening behaviour, and the remainder were acquitted altogether, either by direction of the trial judge, His Honour Judge Elgin Edwards, or by verdict of the jury. The appellant was sentenced to 15 months imprisonment. He appeals against conviction by leave of the Single Judge.
The charges arose out of a demonstration which took place at about 1 pm on 11 February, 1991 at the kennels of the Cheshire Beagle Hounds at Dodleston in Cheshire. The kennel huntsman, Mr. Alan Summersgill, lived nearby in a bungalow. Two days earlier, a hunt saboteur named Michael Hill had been accidentally killed by falling from a trailer driven by Mr. Summersgill. The demonstration was a protest at his death. Mr Summersgill was at the bungalow with his wife. The demonstration started peacefully, with people gathered quietly in the roadway outside the house. As their number increased, they started chanting abuse and threats. A hunting horn sounded. This was alleged by the prosecution to have been a pre-arranged signal. Whether it was or not, some of the crowd surged through the front gate of Mr. Summersgill's garden and a small contingent approached from a field to one side. What followed was a vicious and ugly incident and a terrifying ordeal for the two persons inside the house. Windows were smashed with sticks and rocks. Every window in the house was broken. The car parked in the driveway was damaged. Mr. and Mrs. Summergsill ran from room to room inside the house and they were fearful for their safety if their attackers came inside.
Police at the scene were outnumbered and unable to prevent the disorder. Their attempts to detain people were thwarted by the crowd and all but one, who was a co-accused with the appellant, managed to escape. Others were arrested later, the appellant on the following day when he was at Chester Magistrates Court for the initial remand hearing for those who had been arrested previously.
The trial took place over a three week period in May/June 1992. The judge's admirable summing-up was completed mostly on June 3rd. The jury retired on June 4th and returned their majority verdict (10:2) against the appellant on the following afternoon.
The issue which arises in this appeal is whether the summing-up included a sufficient direction as regards the identification evidence upon which the prosecution relied to prove that the appellant was one of those who took an active part in the violence which undoubtedly occurred. The appellant's defence, like one other of his co-defendants, was that he had not been proved to have been involved in the violence, as distinct from merely being present and taking part in the demonstration, which although not admitted was not much in dispute. His passport was found in a vehicle which was stopped by the police afterwards some 5 miles from the scene.
Following his arrest on the next day, February 12th, he was photographed by the police and interviewed by Detective Sergeant Karl Williams. He gave no replies and the recorded length of the interview was only 3 minutes. That photograph was produced in evidence and was admitted to represent the appellant as he appeared at the time.
The prosecution relied upon a video film and on various 'still' photographs which were taken at the scene. They alleged that a particular individual shown in numerous photographs and appearing from them to have taken an active part, was the appellant. As the judge put it, that person was "very close to the scene of the action". He was shown as wearing a green waxed jacket, similar in appearance to one which the appellant was wearing when he was arrested. The appellant's jacket was produced in evidence.
There were two aspects of the prosecution case against the appellant. First, the jury was invited to draw their own conclusion that the person shown in the photographs was the appellant whom they had seen in Court throughout the trial, although he did not give evidence. This involved taking account of changes in the appellant's appearance between the date of his arrest on the day following the incident and the time of the trial, but in this respect they had the admitted police photograph as evidence of what he looked like at that time.
Secondly, Det. Sgt. Williams gave evidence that he had seen the photographs and that he had identified the person shown in them, whom the prosecution said was the appellant, as the person whom he had interviewed on February 12th, who was admittedly was the appellant. He saw the photographs on April 12th, two months after the interview, which had lasted only three minutes.
The judge dealt with the matter in his summing-up, as follows. He referred to the two defendants in relation to whom an identification issue arose, and regarding the appellant he said this:-
"The only admission that is made concerning the Blenkinsop bundle of photographs is that the first photograph is Mr Blenkinsop. That is how he looked then. He looks different now, you may think. Whether he looks better, whether he looks worse, is not for us to say, but the fact of the matter is that [this] is how he looked when he was arrested by the police …. but E…. whereas all the other defendants admit that the persons shown on the photograph if said to be them is them, that admission is not made in relation to Blenkinsop and therefore, again, you have to consider all the photographs in relation to the Blenkinsop bundle apart from the first one and must not assume that because that, because it is said to be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
William Penn v The Queen
...that was equally admissible as the sworn testimony or documentary evidence. R v Patrick Dodson and another [1984] 1 WLR 971 ; David Richard Blenkinsop [1995] 1 Cr. App. R 7; R v Downey [1995] 1 Cr App. R. 547 considered and applied. 3. Consistent with the reasoning in The Queen v Richard......
-
Attorney General's Reference (No 2 of 2002)
...fact said that he made his own recognition independently and spontaneously. That certainly was not a possibility open to the jury." 15 In Blenkinsop [1995] 1 Cr App R(S) 7, a violent demonstration was recorded on video film and still photographs, all of which were available to the jury. The......
-
William Penn Appellant v The Queen Respondent
...that was equally admissible as the sworn testimony or documentary evidence. R v Patrick Dodson and another [1984] 1 WLR 971 ; David Richard Blenkinsop [1995] 1 Cr. App. R 7; R v Downey [1995] 1 Cr App. R. 547 considered and applied. 3. Consistent with the reasoning in The Queen v Richard......
-
Smith v R
...General v Patrick Heffernan (No. 2) [1951] IR 20 considered R v Cooper [1969] 1 QB 267 considered David Richard Blenkinsop [1995] 1 Cr. App. R 7 applied Dodson and Williams v R (1984) 79 Cr. App. R 220 considered Marr (1989) 90 Cr. App. R 154 applied R v Keane 65 Cr. App. R 247 applied......