R v Burgess
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE |
| Judgment Date | 07 March 1968 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1968] EWCA Crim J0307-8 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
| Docket Number | No. 4219/67 |
| Date | 07 March 1968 |
[1968] EWCA Crim J0307-8
The Lord Chief Justice of England (Lord Parker)
Lord Justice Winn
and
Mr. Justice Ashworth
No. 4219/67
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
MR. G. A. BATHURST-NORMAN appeared as Counsel for the Appellant.
MR. A. LEWISOHN appeared as Counsel for the Crown.
In August last at South-East London Quarter Sessions this Appellant was found guilty of three charges: (1) office breaking and stealing £15 in cash; (2) possessing housebreaking implements by night; and (3) sacrilege and stealing £100 from a church vestry. He was sentenced to a total of five years' imprisonment, and he now appeals by leave of the single Judge against his conviction.
The facts are in a comparatively short compass. The first in order of date was the office breaking. That took place on the night of the 18th May when offices of Marshalls Universals Ltd. in Croydon were broken into and £15 was stolen from a desk drawer which had been forced by a blunt instrument. Attempts had also been made to open two safes, one by explosives and the other by a blunt instrument. There were found at the scene certain pieces of yellow plastic covered wire, copper fragments from a detonator, a plug, some explosives and quantities of multi-coloured plasticine.
Three days later, on the 21st May, the Croydon Parish Church was broken into by forcing the vestry door and between £100 and £115 was taken from one of two safes there. Both the safes had been opened by explosives. Again there were found on the scene a detonator, two pieces of multi-coloured plasticine, a blue cloth with fragments of gelignite adhering to it, and paint samples from the door of one of the safes.
Three days later, on the 24th May, a considerable number of Police Officers stationed themselves round and about the Appellant's house. They appeared determined to arrest him and not allow him to escape, and when he drove up at 11.30 p.m., two Police Officers, Detective Constable Symonds and Detective Constable Holmes were both keeping watch on the house close by. Immediately the Appellant drove up, according to Symonds he was told that they were Police Officers, and he said: "Oh no" and ran off. Thereupon a chase ensued for about a quarter of a mile, when he was found to have sought refuge in a house belonging to a Miss Tiler. He told Miss Tiler that a lot of what appears to be ruffians were after him. She confirmed this and said that he told her to ring up the Police. When the Police came to the house they were let in and the Appellant was arrested. He had his hands tied behind his back with a dog lead, because these Police had brought one or more alsatian dogs with them on this occasion, and according to the Police he was then walked back the quarter of a mile to his house where he had left his car. Again according to the Police, though this was hotly denied, in his presence they searched the car and found underneath the driving seat a case opener or jemmy. That gave rise to the second count of having a house breaking implement by night.
To complete the story they took possession of certain other articles from the car including a screwdriver, and they took him back by car, handcuffed by then, to the Police Station. In. the Police Station there is no doubt that he was handcuffed by one hand to a chair; according to the Police that only lasted for half an hour until the senior Police Officer, Det. Inspector Andrews, arrived, when he was released. But there was no doubt a time on any view when he was handcuffed in that way in the Police Station. According to the Appellant that did not merely last for half an hour, but lasted for a matter of hours, and in particular while he made written and oral statements.
According to the Police his first attitude was that they were talking to the wrong roan; that he knew nothing about any safe blowing; but finally, according to them, he said: "You will find out so I might as well tell you. I did that with another man. He blew the safe and all I did was to take the money out of the drawer. The jemmy and explosives belongs to him". Then again, according to the Police, Inspector Andrews said: "What explosive and where is it now", and according to him the Appellant said: "When you chased me, I threw it away by the garden where you caught me. It is in a little tin".
Thereupon Police Constable Holmes, who had taken part in the chase and in the search of the car, and who was then in the Police Station, was told to go and search the area. Holmes had been one, as I said, who had chased this man up to Miss Tiler's house, and there was a time when, according to Holmes, he had seen the Appellant in the garden of Miss Tiler's house. He went straight to the spot, so he said, where he had seen the Appellant standing, and in a matter of 15 minutes he trod on some plasticine, and a few paces beyond that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Roberts v R
... ... and virtue.’ Grounds of Appeal Counsel for the appellant sought leave to argue an additional ground, explaining that this had not been argued before the Chief Justice during, the Supreme Court hearing, nor before this Court in the allied appeal of Gladwin Ming and Rosemary Burgess v The CrownENR(Civil Appeals No. 3 and 4 of 1991). This was because the ground had only occurred to him yesterday on a careful reading of the bail form. With some hesitation, in view of past strictures by this Court as to the need to give proper notice of grounds of appeal, we gave leave to ... ...
-
DPP v Quilligan (No. 3)
...Chan Wie Kung v. R.ELR [1967] 2 A.C. 160; R. v. BassELR [1953] 1 Q.B. 680; R. v. OvenellELR [1969] 1 Q.B. 17 and R. v. BurgessELR [1968] 2 Q.B. 112 approved. Supreme Court [S.C. Nos. 401 and 405 of 1989] The People (Director of Public Prosecutions) v. Quilligan (No. 3) The People (at the su......
- The State v Ramsingh
-
R v Mushtaq (Ashfaq Ahmed)
...to all the circumstances in deciding whether they should give any weight to a confession. And in the judgment of the Court of Appeal in R v Burgess [1968] 2 QB 112, applying the approach laid down in Chang Wei Keung v The Queen, Lord Parker CJ stated at pp 117-118: "The position now is tha......
-
Exemplum Habemus: Reflections on the Judicial Studies Board's Specimen Directions
...of law asopposed to matters of evidence, and it would be unfortunate if they crystallised assuch’).108 [2002] EWCA Crim 1943.109 [1968] 2 QB 112 esp. at 117.110 JSB Specimen Direction No. 25.2. The transcript in fact gives a slightly differentversion, substituting ‘has’ for ‘was’: presumabl......
-
Table of Cases
...R. v. Burch & Ors. 176 E.R. 622…………..................................................……………………….422 R. v. Burgess (1968) 2 Q.B. 112.………….............................................................………………..403 R. v. Christie (1914) A.C. 545 H.L…………………................................................
-
Judicial Committee of the Privy Council
...of the confession". As WallerLJ.'sstate-ment was made after the decision in Wai-Keung's case and also followedthat in R. v. Burgess [1968] 2 Q. B. 112, the Board was clearly justi-fied in construing that statement in the setting of those two cases andin concluding that it is not a "fresh au......