R v Chard
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Diplock,Lord Scarman,Lord Roskill,Lord Brandon of Oakbrook,Lord Templeman |
| Judgment Date | 10 November 1983 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1983] UKHL J1110-1 |
| Date | 10 November 1983 |
| Court | House of Lords |
[1983] UKHL J1110-1
Lord Diplock
Lord Scarman
Lord Roskill
Lord Brandon of Oakbrook
Lord Templeman
House of Lords
My Lords,
After a trial that had lasted nine weeks before Mr. Justice Nield and a jury at the Old Bailey, the appellant Chard was convicted on 7th November 1975 on three counts of conspiracies to commit robbery. On 21st November, he was sentenced to fifteen years' imprisonment on each count to run concurrently. The first count against him (count 6 in the indictment) was a general count of conspiracy in June and July 1974, which did not specify any particular places where robberies which were the subject of the conspiracy were to be committed; the other two counts (14 and 15) referred to robberies at two identified places, Chigwell in Essex and a bank at Park Royal, London, respectively.
At the arraignment, Chard was charged with nine other defendants, alleged to be fellow members with him of a gang engaged in armed robberies for which Chard's principal function was to provide the firearms used by other members of the gang in carrying out the robberies. His role as armourer to the gang was the subject of the general conspiracy count, 6. Count 14 relating to Chigwell was based upon his allegedly proposing and providing detailed information for carrying out a robbery of a bank there which, in the event, did not take place owing to the arrest of some of the leading members of the gang. Count 15 was based upon his having participated in "casing the joint" before the robbery of the bank at Park Royal, which, in the event, was carried out successfully. Of those nine members of the gang arraigned with Chard, five pleaded guilty, four upon arraignment, and a fifth at the close of the prosecution's case. Thereafter the trial proceeded against Chard and the other three remaining defendants. These gave evidence in their own defence. Chard chose not to go into the witness box, nor did he, as was then permitted, make any unsworn statement from the dock.
The principal evidence for the prosecution was that of three other members of the gang who had been charged, had pleaded guilty and had been sentenced before the trial in which Chard was a defendant began. These accomplices were, "Billy" Williams, James Trusty and Peter Wilding, of whom Billy Williams was probably the first criminal to earn the now-familiar sobriquet of "super-grass".
The only evidence against Chard on each of the three counts of which he was convicted was that of these accomplices, all three of them on the count 6, the general count of conspiracy to commit robberies (although Wilding does not appear to have referred to Chard's role as armourer); Billy Williams and James Trusty implicated him on count 14 relating specifically to Chigwell, and Billy Williams and Peter Wilding did so on count 15 relating to the Park Royal bank.
Chard and two other of the four defendants who had been found guilty by verdict of the jury applied for leave to appeal against their convictions and sentences. Their applications ("the 1977 Appeal") were heard by a Court of Appeal, consisting of Lords Justices Lawton and Bridge (as he then was) and Mr. Justice McKenna. Lawton L.J. delivered the judgment of that court on 8th March 1977. Leave to appeal against conviction was refused to all three applicants, but leave to appeal against sentence was granted to Chard (and another appellant). Chard's sentence was reduced to twelve years' imprisonment concurrent on each count.
All three appellants were represented separately on the 1977 Appeal by counsel of great experience in criminal cases; as appears from the transcript of the judgment of the Court of Appeal, none of these counsel had criticised the summing-up by the trial judge which had extended over two days and was described by the Court of Appeal as "a model of clarity and conciseness". The judgment also records that counsel on behalf of Chard had made detailed submissions that there were inconsistencies in the prosecution's evidence of such a character as to make the verdicts against his client unsafe; and the latter part of the judgment in the 1977 Appeal deals with and rejects those submissions.
Peter Wilding was released on parole early in 1981, and gave an interview to a journalist on the Guardian newspaper in which he retracted evidence that he had given at the trial and, in particular, his positive identification of Chard as being one of the persons who had "cased the joint" before the raid upon the bank at Park Royal. In consequence of this article the Home Secretary had caused Wilding to be interviewed by a Detective Chief Superintendent to whom Wilding repeated, albeit not entirely unequivocally, that his positive identification of Chard's presence on that occasion was untrue.
By letter of 2nd April 1981 the Home Secretary, in exercise of his powers under section 17(1)( a) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968, referred to the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, "the whole of the case of Alan John Chard for determination in respect of his conviction on 7th November 1975 of three offences of conspiracy to rob." In the previous paragraph of his letter he had referred to the article in the Guardian newspaper and also to Mr. Wilding's statement to the Detective Chief Superintendent. A copy of the record of this statement was enclosed.
Section 17 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 is in the following terms:
"17. (1) Where a person has been convicted on indictment, or been tried on indictment and found not guilty by reason of insanity, or been found by a jury to be under disability, the Secretary of State may, if he thinks fit, at any time either -
( a) refer the whole case to the Court of Appeal and the case shall then be treated for all purposes as an appeal to the Court by that person; or
( b) if he desires the assistance of the Court on any point arising in the case, refer that point to the Court for their opinion thereon, and the Court shall consider the point so referred and furnish the Secretary of State with their opinion thereon accordingly.
(2) A reference by the Secretary of State under this section may be made by him either on an application by the person referred to in subsection (1), or without any such application.
In my view, which I understand is shared by all your Lordships, the words of paragraph ( a) of subsection (1) in their natural and ordinary meaning are free from any trace of ambiguity; the person whose case which resulted in his conviction is the subject matter of the reference is to be treated for all purposes as if he were a person upon whom there is conferred by section 1 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 a general right of appeal to the Court of Appeal on any ground which he wishes to rely (whether it be of law or fact or mixed law and fact), without need to obtain the prior leave of that court.
The Court of Appeal by whom Chard's case that had been referred to it by the Home Secretary, ("the second appeal"), was heard was composed of O'Connor L.J., Peter Pain J. and Stuart-Smith J., none of whom had sat on the 1977 Appeal. Application was made on Chard's behalf to adduce at the hearing of the second appeal fresh evidence in the form of the statement made by Wilding to the Detective Chief Superintendent of which a copy had been enclosed with the Home Secretary's letter; and a perfected notice of grounds of appeal in the following terms was lodged.
"1. The Appellant's convictions upon all three counts of conspiracy to rob (originally Counts 10, 20 and 21; later renumbered Counts 6, 14 and 15) are unsafe and unsatisfactory and should be quashed for the following reasons:-
(a) fresh evidence is now available to the effect that the prosecution witness, Peter Wilding has admitted committing perjury in relation to his evidence against the Appellant on Counts 6 and 15.
(b) although the said Peter Wilding gave no evidence against the Appellant on Count 14, his own admissions of perjury implicate the main prosecution witness on that Count, "Billy" Williams, in instigating and blackmailing him into giving his perjured evidence.
(c) all three convictions depended on the uncorroborated evidence of accomplices as to Count 6:- Billy" Williams, James Trusty and Peter Wilding.
as to Count 14 "Billy" Williams and James Trusty.
as to Count 15 "Billy" Williams and Peter Wilding.
(d) The said uncorroborated accomplice evidence was "subject to particular contradictions and weaknesses on each "count against this Appellant."
It is to be observed that although paragraphs (a) and (b) rely upon the fresh evidence of Peter Wilding, paragraphs (c) and (d) seek to impugn the verdicts against Chard as unsafe or unsatisfactory upon wider grounds that are not alluded to in the Home Secretary's letter of reference of 2nd April 1981. The ground relied upon on paragraph (c) that the convictions were based upon the uncorroborated evidence of accomplices would open the door to criticism (expressly disclaimed by Chard's counsel at the 1977 appeal) of the adequacy of the trial judge's warning to the jury of the danger of convicting on such evidence; while the ground, relied upon in paragraph (d); that even if such warning had been adequate the accomplice evidence against Chard was itself subject to contradictions and weaknesses that made a verdict of guilty based upon it unsafe or unsatisfactory was a complaint that had been advanced by Chard's counsel in the 1977 appeal and is dealt with in some detail in the judgment of the court on that occasion when it was rejected as insufficient ground for granting Chard leave to appeal against conviction.
Wilding himself gave oral evidence to the Court of Appeal at the hearing of the second appeal. He confirmed that the evidence that he had given at the trial in 1975...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dunnachie v Kingston upon Hull City Council
...is a consolidation Act we do not have to explore the ramifications of the principles of construction explained by the House of Lords in R v Chard [1984] AC 279, 294–5 per Lords Scarman, Roskill and Templeman, and in B (A Minor) v DPP [2000] AC 428, 465–6 and 473–4, which are concerned with ......
-
A v Hoare
...that the term found in the later statute was intended to bear the same meaning. This is not, however, an inflexible rule (see R v Chard [1984] AC 279, 294G-H, 295C and 295E). In any event, instead of adopting that approach, Lord Griffiths went straight back to the report of the Tucker Commi......
-
Reclaiming Motion By David Macmillan Against T Leith Developments Ltd (in Receivership And Liquidation)
...Co (supra) at 27). This was not a canon of “absolute obligation” (ibid at 50; Haigh v Charles W Ireland 1974 SC (HL) 1 at 40; R v Chard [1984] AC 279). The court was not prevented from reversing an earlier judicial error where legislation had been reworked (Farrell v Alexander [1977] AC 59 ......
-
Abdelbaset Al Megrahi V. Her Majesty's Advocate
...as an appeal to the court by that person ...". That subsection was the subject of interpretation by the House of Lords in Reg. v Chard [1984] 1 A.C. 279. In 1993 the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice delivered its report ("the Runciman Report"). Chapter Eleven was concerned with the corr......