R v Bryan James Turner

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
JudgeLORD JUSTICE LAWTON,LORD JUSTICE JAMES,MR. JUSTICE MILMO
Judgment Date24 March 1975
Judgment citation (vLex)[1975] EWCA Crim J0324-1
Docket NumberNos. 2355/R/74, 2468/R/74, 2291/R/74, 479/R/75, 2094/R/74, 2253/R/74, 759/R/75, 3048/R/74, 2823/R/74, 4007/R/74, 4143/R/74, 4182/R/74, 4032/R/74, 4276/R/74, 4133/R/74 and 3866/R/74
CourtCourt of Appeal (Criminal Division)
Date24 March 1975

[1975] EWCA Crim J0324-1

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

CRIMINAL DIVISION

Royal Courts of Justice

Before:

Lord Justice Lawton

Lord Justice James

and

Mr. Justice Milmo

Nos. 2355/R/74, 2468/R/74, 2291/R/74, 479/R/75, 2094/R/74, 2253/R/74, 759/R/75, 3048/R/74, 2823/R/74, 4007/R/74, 4143/R/74, 4182/R/74, 4032/R/74, 4276/R/74, 4133/R/74 and 3866/R/74

Regina
and
Bryan James Turner
James Stanley Wilkinson
Daniel Alfred Allpress
William Edward Brian Reynolds
William Stanley Shervill
David Christopher Delaney
Bruce Brown
Michael Henry Salmon
Daniel Alfred Allpress
John Alfred Richards
Leonard Walter Jones
Anthony Edlin
James William Jeffrey
Robert Alles King
Donald Walter Barrett
and
David Kozak

MR. W.E. DENNY and MR. W.F.C. THOMAS appeared on behalf of the Appellant Turner.

MR. J.N. HUTCHINSON, Q.C. and MR. L.P. LAITY appeared on behalf of the Appellant Wilkinson.

MR. D.A. HOLLIS, Q.C. and MR. V. ROBINSON appeared on behalf of the Appellant Allpress.

MR. W.E. DENNY and MR. M. HESLOF appeared on behalf of the Appellant Reynolds.

MR. A.F. WALEY, Q.C. and MR. J.O. HAINES appeared on behalf of the Appellant Shervill.

MR. R. GREY and MISS D.A. FREEDMAN appeared on behalf of the Appellant Delaney.

MR. J.O. HAINES appeared on behalf of the Appellant Brown.

MR. C.L. HAWSER, Q.C. and MR. R.B. SANDERS appeared on behalf of the Appellant Salmon.

MR. D.H.W. VOWDEN, Q.C. and MR. T. LAWRENCE appeared on behalf of the Appellant Richards.

MR. B.H. ANNS, Q.C. and MR. T.R. KING appeared on behalf of the Appellant Jones.

MR. L. LEWIS, Q.C. and MR. C. NUTT appeared on behalf of the Appellant Edlin.

MR. M. WATERS, Q.C. and MR. N.C. GARDINER appeared on behalf of the Appellant Jeffrey.

MR. P.R.C. CONI and MR. P. BEACH appeared on behalf of the Appellant King.

MR. G. WRIGHT, Q.C. and MR. A.D.F. WILCKEN appeared on behalf of the Appellant Barrett.

MR. M.C.B. WEST and MR. E. ASHWORTH appeared on behalf of the Appellant Kozak.

MR. J.C. MATHEW and MR. R.D. AMLOT appeared on behalf of the Crown.

1

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

LORD JUSTICE LAWTON
2

The Reasons for Judgment will be given in three parts. I will give the first part relating to the appeal of Turner and others; Lord Justice James will give the judgment relating to the appeal of Salmon and others; and Mr. Justice Milmo will give the judgment relating to the remaining appeals.

3

On the 2nd October 1968 robbers raided the National Provincial Bank in North Street, Brighton and stole £72,000. This was the beginning of a series of raids on business premises, mostly banks, and on security vans carrying money which went on until August 1972. A total of £1,257,257 was stolen. On most of the raids disguises were used and guns were carried. On some of them they were fired and one member of the public was wounded: others were injured. The raids were carefully planned and carried out with skill, determination and nerve. The police had reason to believe that these crimes were the work of a single gang. The membership of it varied from time to time. Casualties were suffered by the gang in November 1970 when three members were convicted for the robbery in February 1970 of a bank at Ilford. At least seven men took part in this raid: there may have been nine. The information which enabled it to be carried out was provided by two dishonest security guards. Disguises were used. Ammonia was squirted in the face of a security guard. Guns were carried by the robbers and a shot was fired. £237,736 was stolen. On some occasions it became necessary in the interests of prudence for some members of the gang not to take part in raids.

4

The size and ramifications of this criminal enterprise made it one of the most serious with which the police had ever had to deal.

5

On August 10th 1972 there was a raid on a branch of Barclays Bank at High Street, Wembley. £138,111 was stolen. The raiders were armed and masked. A shot was fired. Eight days later, on August 18th, a security van was held up on Totty Street, in Stepney, and £40,760 was stolen. This was the last of the raids. On August 30th, 1972, the police arrested the appellant Brown: he was found hiding in the loft of his home. The round up of the gang had started but at first it went slowly, in November 1972 the police stopped the appellant Shervill in Perivale. They searched the motor car in which he was a passenger. In it they found a firearm. He and others were charged with its unlawful possession and with conspiracy to rob. In due course he was committed for trial at the Central Criminal Court. At the time of his arrest the police had no evidence that he was a member of the bank robbing gang. He was arraigned on September 26th, 1973 and pleaded guilty. He was sentenced to six years' imprisonment. What happened at his trial is of importance in his appeal in this case.

6

On 23rd December 1972, a man named Derek Creighton Smalls was arrested on suspicion of having been involved in the Wembley bank robbery. He was later charged with that robbery and others. On the day of his arrest he said to Detective Sergeant Marshall: "You give me outers and bail now and I'll give you everything on those jobs you told me about." On 2nd January 1973 he told the same officer that in return for what he called a guarantee he would tell "the inside story". He continued in the same way at later interviews with the police. What had happened was reported to the Director of Public Prosecutions. On 14th and 21st March, 1973, Smalls' solicitors went to the Director's office and had conversations with one of his staff. As a result on 2nd April 1973 the Assistant Director wrote to Smalls' solicitors in these terms:

7

"I refer to the matters discussed at two meetings at this office on the 14th and 21st March 1973 in this case in which you act for the two above-named defendants, the first of whom, Derek Creighton Smalls, has expressed his wish to give evidence for the Crown, subject to certain conditions as follows:-

8

"1. The Director of Public Prosecutions will not offer, nor cause, permit or authorise the offering of any evidence upon a Criminal charge in respect of any offence other than homicide which may have been committed by Smalls and which he may disclose in any future statement he makes to the Police within the terms of this letter.

9

"2. Smalls will make to Commander Roy Yorke of No. 2 District Headquarters, Portman Square, London, W.1. or his designated officer(s) and in the presence of representatives of Messrs. Steggles Palmer a statement relating to the whole of his, Smalls', criminal activities and enterprises and those of any associates and all other information within his own knowledge relating to his own criminal activities and enterprises and those of any other person or persons.

10

"3. On 3rd April 1973 Smalls shall be remanded upon the charges already preferred against him to police cells at Wembley Police Station (provided the Court agrees but in this respect both parties shall use their best endeavours to persuade the Court to "grant bail) pending his committal for trial on the 6th April 1973.

11

"4. In that period Smalls will make the statement referred to above. This statement will not be used against Smalls or his common law wife Diane Smalls in any proceedings that have or may be taken against them, but may be used in furtherance of any criminal proceedings against the persons whose names are revealed therein.

12

"5. Within the period between the 3rd April 1973 and Smalls' committal for trial the information contained in the statement will be assessed by the Police to ascertain whether it is of sufficient evidential value and Messrs. Steggles Palmer will be informed at the earliest opportunity whether or not it is intended to use the statement in proceedings against any other person or persons.

13

"6. If the information disclosed in the statement is not considered by the Police to be of sufficient evidential value to the Police and it is decided not to make use of it in criminal proceedings, the same shall be kept in conditions of secrecy on Metropolitan Police files and not used for any purpose and no mention will be made of it by the Director of Public Prosecutions or the Police in the proceedings against Smalls, which will continue nor shall any mention be made of any discussions between Messrs. Steggles Palmer and the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Police with a view to Smalls giving evidence for the Crown but this shall not relate to statements made by Smalls to the Police when he was being interrogated by the Police subsequent to his arrest.

14

"7. If the statement made by Smalls discloses information of evidential value and is of genuine and substantial assistance to the Police in the investigation of various crimes and if Smalls is prepared to give evidence for the Crown when so required then:-

  • (a) Both parties shall use their best endeavours to persuade the Court to grant bail at the committal proceedings, or upon any subsequent application for bail.

  • "(b) Should bail be granted, Smalls shall reside at such place or places as Commander Yorke shall specify.

  • (c)No evidence will be offered against Smalls and his brother upon the charges upon which they may be committed for trial by Harrow Magistrates' Court on the 6th April 1973 and at the Central Criminal Court the Judge will be invited to discharge both him and his brother Kelvin John Smalls.

  • (d)The Police will take all necessary steps for the safety of Smalls and his wife and children and he and his wife and children will be removed to a secret place and there guarded by not less than two Police Officers.

  • (e)Upon termination of the evidence which he may be required to give (until which time the safe custody provisions referred to above would apply) Smalls and his wife and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
216 cases
  • R v Simon Samuel Adeojo and Ronald Mugambwa
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
    • 27 d5 Junho d5 2008
    ... ... fall outside the definitive guidelines and the decision of this court in the case of Turner will still give authoritative guidance. The council recognised that in saying: ... ...
  • R v Alan Newell
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
    • 30 d5 Março d5 2012
    ...person to whom a defendant refers a person for information is admissible against the defendant as evidence of any matter stated." 20 In R v Turner (Bryan) (1975) 61 Cr App R 67, this court had to consider whether what a defendant's counsel had said in a plea in mitigation in one case could ......
  • R v Raymond John Betson; R v Cockran
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
    • 22 d4 Janeiro d4 2004
    ...in his sentencing remarks made no specific finding as to the purpose for which it was. Mr Blunt referred to a number of authorities. 50 In R v Turner 61 Cr App R 67 at page 91, the judgment of the Court given by Lawton LJ has been, as has been rightly pointed out before us, for some 30 year......
  • Nicoletta v R
    • Cayman Islands
    • Grand Court (Cayman Islands)
    • 20 d5 Novembro d5 1992
    ...R. v. HughesUNK(1985), 81 Cr. App. R. 344, followed. (2) R. v. PipeUNK(1967), 51 Cr. App. R. 17, distinguished. (3) R. v. TurnerUNK(1975), 61 Cr. App. R. 67, dicta of Lawton, L.J. applied. Legislation construed: Criminal Procedure Code (Law 13 of 1975), s.172, as amended by Criminal Procedu......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
6 books & journal articles
  • The Safety-Valve: Discretion to Admit Hearsay Evidence in Criminal Proceedings
    • United Kingdom
    • Journal of Criminal Law, The No. 76-4, August 2012
    • 1 d3 Agosto d3 2012
    ...3025, [2008] 1 Cr App R 35.86 [2011] EWCA Crim 1990.87 Al-Khawaja vUnited Kingdom (2012) 54 EHRR 23, [2012] Crim LR 375.88 R vTurner (1975) 61 Cr App R 67; R vBlastland [1986] AC 41.89 Law Commission, above n. 1 at para. 8.92.90 The Law Commission recognised that the admissibility of third-......
  • Confessions and the Criminal Justice Act 2003
    • United Kingdom
    • Journal of Criminal Law, The No. 77-3, June 2013
    • 1 d6 Junho d6 2013
    ...n. 1 at para. 8.97. In R v Blastland [1986] AC 41, the House of Lords had approved the decision of the Court of Appeal in R v Turner(1975) 61 Cr App R 67, the Court of Appeal in Turner having held at p. 87 thatthird-party confessions were inadmissible because they were ‘. . . hearsay eviden......
  • Embracing the Overriding Objective: Difficulties and Dilemmas in the New Criminal Climate
    • United Kingdom
    • International Journal of Evidence & Proof, The No. 16-3, July 2012
    • 1 d0 Julho d0 2012
    ...(2006) 9 Legal Ethics 56. 65 R (on the application of Firth) v Epping Magistrates’ Court [2011] EWHC 388.66 Applying R v Turner (1975) 61 Cr App R 67, in which it was held that an admission by counsel is presumed to be an admission by the accused. The accused in Firth had pleaded guilty by ......
  • Fingerprint Comparison and Adversarialism: The Scientific and Historical Evidence
    • United Kingdom
    • The Modern Law Review No. 83-6, November 2020
    • 1 d0 Novembro d0 2020
    ...EWCA Crim 3063 at [22]; RvArenu [2009] EWCA Crim 1648 at [9]; RvBovell, R vDowds [2005] EWCA Crim 1091 at [21].30 RvTurner and others (1975) 61 Cr App R 67,73 (italics added). See also RvGeorge 2000 WL1841694 at [2].1292 © 2020 The Authors. The Modern Law Review© 2020 The Moder n Law Review......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT