R v Busby
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE EVELEIGH |
| Judgment Date | 14 December 1981 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1981] EWCA Crim J1214-2 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
| Docket Number | No. 2371/B2/80 |
| Date | 14 December 1981 |
[1981] EWCA Crim J1214-2
Lord Justice Eveleigh
Mr. Justice Mars Jones
and
Mr. Justice Anthony Lincoln
No. 2371/B2/80
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
MR. M. KENNEDY, Q.C. and MR. C. FISHER appeared on behalf of the Appellant.
MR. J. WILLIAMS appeared on behalf of the Crown.
On 2nd May 1980 before the crown court at Cambridge this Appellant was convicted of six offences of burglary and four offences of handling stolen goods. He was sentenced to five years' imprisonment concurrently on the burglaries and four years' imprisonment concurrently on the handling, making a total of five years' imprisonment.
The indictment originally consisted of 31 counts. They charged conspiracy to commit burglary, burglary, and handling stolen goods in the two usual alternative forms of receiving and undertaking or assisting in the retention, etc. The accused was not arraigned on count 1, conspiracy to commit burglary, and count 31, burglary. The remaining 29 counts were renumbered with number 2 becoming number 1, and so on. The accused was therefore tried on 29 counts, 10 of which were burglary and the remainder being the two forms of handling as alternatives to the first nine burglary charges. The tenth burglary charge, i.e. count 29 as renumbered, had no alternative charges. It has been thought necessary to give this introduction because at one stage there was a little confusion as to which counts we were considering.
On the indictment as amended the Appellant was convicted of six offences of burglary (counts 7, 13, 16, 22, 28 and 29) and four offences of handling stolen goods (counts 2, 5, 20 and 26). The other counts were ordered to lie on the file.
The prosecution called to give evidence one Adams, an antique dealer convicted of handling stolen goods, who spoke of receiving proceeds from a number of the burglaries from the accused.
They called one Gentry, a fellow prisoner of the accused, who said that the accused had boasted of some of the offences to him (counts 7, 13 and 16). He said that the accused gave him details, which the witness recounted, of some of the burglaries, and, furthermore, that he asked the witness to have some burglaries taken into consideration.
There was evidence of two other fellow prisoners, Davenport and Beecroft, to the effect that the accused had offered Davenport money to have some of the burglaries taken into consideration. There was also a Miss Kusyn, a person with a conviction for dishonesty, who spoke of seeing the accused in possession of stolen property.
There were seven separate police interviews on 2nd to 5th July. No specific admissions were alleged but the following remarks were attributed to the accused: "I will cop a plea at court if you can make things right." "I am prepared to do a deal but I need some insurance." "I will have a couple of the burglaries but not the lot." It was also said that the Appellant offered to plead to some of the burglaries if the rest were pushed under the carpet.
The accused did not give evidence. His father was called to establish alibis for counts 1, 4 and 13. (The accused was acquitted on counts 1 and 4 but convicted on count 13. a burglary charge.)
Mr. Kennedy for the accused suggested to the above named witnesses that they expected some favour from the police in return for giving evidence against the accused. He suggested to the police witnesses that they were making up the remarks attributed to the accused. He cross-examined two police officers, Inspector Grainger and Sergeant Hurrell, seeking to establish that they were biased against the accused and therefore untruthful. It was put to Sergeant Hurrell that he had called upon a Mr. Wiseman, when making enquiries about some stolen goods, when he saw a copy of a statement made by Wiseman to the accused's solicitor in relation to the accused's defence and then threatened Wiseman to stop him giving evidence. It was suggested to Inspector Grainger that he was present when Hurrell made the threat. Both officers denied that there had been any such threat. Inspector Grainger accepted in cross-examination that he had been told by Sergeant Hurrell that Hurrell had been cross-examined on this matter.
The defence called Mr. Wiseman. He gave evidence on another aspect of the case and then began to speak of the visit of the two police officers. He said that Sergeant Hurrell was given the copy of his evidence by the other officer, and then, before Mr. Kennedy fully developed the matter, counsel for the prosecution indicated that he wished to raise an objection. After...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R v Edwards (John)
...show that the police are prepared to go to improper lengths to secure a conviction". That was drawn from the decision in R v BusbyUNK ((1981) 75 CrAppR 79) but a close study of Busby seemed to show that its true basis might well have been the suggestion of bias against the particular defend......
- Public Prosecutor v Dato' Seri Anwar bin Ibrahim (No. 3)
-
Goldsmith v Sandilands
...1 Ex 91 at 104 [ 154 ER 38 at 44]. 28Palmer v The Queen (1998) 193 CLR 1 at 23 [53]. 29 (1940) 63 CLR 533 at 551 citing Christian J in R v Burke (1858) 8 Cox CC 44 at 53. 30 (1991) 32 FCR 282 at 298. 31 (1991) 32 FCR 282 at 300. 32 (1940) 63 CLR 533. 33 (1940) 63 CLR 533 at 547. 34 (1940) 6......
-
Nicholls v the Queen
...J; 190 ALR 370 at 379–381. 21 (1991) 32 FCR 282 at 298. 22 (1940) 63 CLR 533. 23 (2002) 76 ALJR 1024; 190 ALR 370. 24 Compare Busby (1981) 75 Cr App R 79 and Harris v Tippett (1811) 2 Camp 637 [ 170 ER 1277]; see also Marsh (1985) 83 Cr App R 165; R v Knightsbridge Crown Court; Ex parte G......