R v Cheema
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE |
| Judgment Date | 04 October 1993 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1993] EWCA Crim J1004-24 |
| Docket Number | No. 91/4201/Y3 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
| Date | 04 October 1993 |
[1993] EWCA Crim J1004-24
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL CRIMINAL DIVISION
Before: The Lord Chief Justice of England (Lord Taylor of Gosforth) Mr Justice Hidden and Mr Justice Buckley
No. 91/4201/Y3
MR ROBIN SIMPSON QC and MR FERGUS MITCHELL appeared on behalf of THE APPELLANT
MR VICTOR TEMPLE appeared on behalf of THE CROWN
Monday 4 October 1993
THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICEOn 13 July 1993, we dismissed this appeal. We now give our reasons.
On 24 July 1991, at the Central Criminal Court, this appellant was convicted of two offences and on 25 July 1991, was sentenced as follows: on count 2, for attempted murder, 15 years imprisonment; on count 3, for murder, life imprisonment; on count 3, for murder, life imprisonment. She appealed against conviction by leave of the single judge.
The victim of these offences was the appellant's husband, Mohinder Singh Cheema, aged 57 at the time of his death on 3 October 1990. He was a successful businessman, reputed to be very wealthy and with several properties in England and India. These included premises at 84 Cromwell Road, Hounslow, consisting of an off-licence shop with attached accommodation where he and his family lived.
The appellant, aged 43 at the date of the trial, was the deceased's second wife, having married him in 1985 after a relationship with him lasting some 15 years. The appellant bore the deceased two sons. The elder did not feature in the case, but the younger, Kismet, was aged 18 at the time of his joint trial with the appellant.
The deceased has lost contact with his first family, save for the eldest son, John, from whom he had been estranged, but whose relationship with the deceased improved in the months prior to the deceased's death following the birth of John's first child. The deceased's marriage to the appellant had become loveless and unhappy.
In brief, the prosecution case was that the appellant wanted to be rid of the deceased and involved others in a plot to kill him. There was an abortive expedition to do so on 16 August 1990, followed by the attempt on 19 August 1990 when the deceased was shot in the back at close range in the shop at Cromwell Road by an intruder. The deceased survived, spending six weeks in hospital. The appellant and Kismet suggested to the police that young Asian gangsters who had threatened the family might be responsible.
On 3 October 1990, the deceased was discharged from hospital and on the same day was again shot by an intruder at the rear of the living quarters at Cromwell Road. He was killed instantly.
The indictment charged four defendants with involvement in the deceased's death. They were the appellant and Kismet, together with two young men, Neil Marklew, aged 19, a friend of Kismet, and Robert Naughton, aged 20, a friend of Marklew.
Marklew and Naughton were charged on counts 2 and 3, Naughton as the gunman on both occasions and Marklew as planner and recruiter of Naughton, ferrying him to and from the scene on each occasion. Naughton and Marklew were tried separately from and before the appellant and Kismet. Naughton pleaded guilty to both counts. Marklew pleaded guilty to count 2. He sought to rely on diminished responsibility on count 3, but was convicted of murder.
In the subsequent joint trial of the appellant and Kismet, the appellant faced counts 2 and 3. It was alleged the idea to kill the deceased was hers because she had come to hate him and also wanted to inherit his wealth before his improving relationship with his son John might lead him to provide for the latter in his will. Kismet faced count 1 (conspiracy to murder) and count 4 (doing acts tending to and intended to pervert the course of public justice). As to count 1, it was contended he was party to the agreement to kill the deceased and was willing to assist, although his active involvement was limited to driving Marklew on the abortive expedition to shoot the deceased on 16 August, abandoned due to loss of nerve.
On count 4, it was contended that Kismet helped to hide the murder weapon and made a false witness statement to the police after the killing on 3 October. He pleaded not guilty to both counts, but changed his plea on count 4 to guilty during the course of the trial. He was convicted on count 1 and was sentenced to a total of three years' detention.
The prosecution case depended primarily on Marklew's evidence supported, as against the appellant, by evidence which Kismet gave in his own defence. Marklew had known Kismet for some years and had visited 84 Cromwell Road. He said he did not like the deceased, and the appellant made it clear to him that she did not like the deceased either. Indeed, she said she hated him and on occasions that she wanted to kill him but did not know how.Marklew said that in the summer of 1990, he "offered jokingly to bump (the deceased) off", and the appellant took him at his word, asking how much it would cost. marklew told her the transfer of the shop to him would suffice, and suggested shooting the deceased. According to Marklew, Kismet, who also expressed dislike of the deceased, was present during the discussion. Marklew said he could get a gun for £1,000, and the appellant paid him that sum without demur. In fact, Marklew obtained a sawn-off shotgun for only £90 and retained the balance for himself. He described the abortive expedition of 16 August, saying it was agreed with both the appellant and Kismet that the deceased was to be shot in the shop at 84 Cromwell Road, with Marklew as the gunman and Kismet as the get-away driver. It was also agreed the shooting would be blamed on the Asian gang. However, nearing the shop they got cold feet and drove away. They dismantled the gun and returned it to the appellant who called them cowards.
On 19 August, Marklew approached Naughton and asked him to shoot the deceased. The price was to be a flat owned by the deceased which the appellant was willing to provide for Naughton and his girlfriend. Naughton agreed and the shooting was arranged for that very evening at 84 Cromwell Road. Marklew drove Naughton to the scene. Naughton shot the deceased at the shop. Marklew drove Naughton home, where the gun was left. He then returned to the shop and drove Kismet to the hospital where the appellant congratulated him, believing the deceased to be close to death.
When it became clear the deceased would survive his injuries, a further plan was discussed, according to Marklew, by all four of those charged. It was decided the deceased should be shot again as he emerged from hospital. Meanwhile, a sexual relationship developed between the appellant and Marklew. On the night of 2 October, Naughton stayed at the appellant's home. Next day, the appellant gave Marklew a balaclava, one of two she had purchased a week earlier. The gun was assembled at Cromwell Road and was oiled by Naughton with lubricant from a can later found at the house by the police. It had been arranged that John Cheema would collect the deceased from hospital and drive him home. The appellant telephoned John's wife to discover the make, colour and registration number of John's car. She wrote these details on a piece of paper which, according to Marklew, she gave to him to pass to Naughton so that the latter would know where to lie in wait.
In the event, Naughton and Marklew missed the deceased's emergence from the hospital. Marklew telephoned the appellant and it was arranged that he and Naughton would come to Cromwell Road and consider an alternative plan en route. They drove to a public house, and Naughton went on foot to the shop to shoot the deceased. Meanwhile, Marklew picked up Kismet and took him to the public house. Naughton entered 84 Cromwell Road from the rear, shot the deceased dead in the back part of the premises, returned to the public house and all three men, Naughton, Marklew and Kismet then drove to Naughton's address where the gun was dismantled and the note containing particulars of John's car was burnt.
Marklew was arrested the same day. Initially, he made no mention of the appellant, but in subsequent interviews, he admitted his own part in the shootings and implicated both the appellant and Kismet.
The police searched Naughton's address and found a balaclava and the remains of the burnt note given, according to Marklew, by the appellant to him.
The prosecution also relied on evidence about the appellant's behaviour at the shop after the deceased returned from hospital with his son John and his father. There was evidence that the appellant unusually left the back yard door open, that she contrived that the deceased should unusually go into the back part of the premises, after which she closed the doors between the shop and the back rooms which was also unusual. She herself went next door to make a telephone call, unusually, on the pay phone there. She claimed the phone call was to a Mrs Bianchi, who, however, denied receiving one. The Crown suggested she was telephoning Marklew on his mobile telephone, which she had bought him as a present, and there was evidence of an unusual number of telephone calls made on that phone on the day of the murder. Finally, a dog which would normally have barked at the rear of the shop was silent when Naughton arrived, and it was suggested the appellant had confined it elsewhere.
When arrested, the appellant denied any complicity in her husband's death and also denied her affair with Marklew. In evidence, she admitted the sexual relationship, but again denied her guilt. She said she had bought the balaclavas for Kismet to use on college field trips....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R v Morrissey ; R v Staines
...such a direction was so prejudicial to Mr Morrisey as to compel the quashing of his conviction. In support of that submission he relies on R v Cheema (1994) 98 Cr App R 195. That was a case in which the evidence given by one co-defendant was damaging to another and the issue was whether a f......
-
R v Thomas Alexander Haigh
...the direction at page 6E of the transcript of the summing-up and says this was inadequate. Mr Elvidge referred us to the well-known case of R v Cheema [1994] 1 WLR 147 where this area of the law was reviewed in detail by Lord Taylor of Gosforth, CJ. 29 Lord Taylor summed up the position on ......
-
R v Richards (K)
...[1916] 2 K.B. 658; (1916), 12 Cr. App. R. 81. (7) R. v. BlakeENR(1844), 6 Q.B. 126; 115 E.R. 49; 13 L.J.M.C. 131. (8) R. v. Cheema, [1994] 1 W.L.R. 147; [1994] 1 All E.R. 639, applied. (9) R. v. ChristieELR, [1914] A.C. 545; sub nom. D.P.P. v. Christie, [1914–15] All E.R. Rep. 63; (1914), 1......
-
R v Jones (Wayne) ; R v WJ
...LR 48, CA, submitted that some warning of this sort should have been given in accordance with the general guidance given by this Court in R v Cheema (1994) 98 Cr App R 195, 204. 36 Here, as it happens, the defences are not cut-throat in the full sense because Jones was saying that their com......
-
Subject Index
.... . . . . . . . . 208R vC [2010] EWCACrim 2578 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165R vChamber (1990) 780CR (3d) 235,SCC . . . . . 73R vCheema [1994] 1WLR 147. . . . . . . . . . 158, 159R v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police,ex p. LS and Marper [2002] EWHC 478(Admin); [2002] EWCA Civ 1275;......
-
The Technical Aspects of Technicality: A Slightly Whimsical Inquiry into What Makes a Rule of Evidence or Procedure ‘Technical’
...& PROOFWHAT MAKES A RULE OF EVIDENCE OR PROCEDURE ‘TECHNICAL’33 [1916] 2 KB 658.34 [1954] AC 378.35 [1973] AC 729.36 Ibid. at 750.37 [1994] 1 WLR 147 at 158.38 In saying this, Lord Taylor CJ was merely reflecting sentiments already expressed by the LawCommission (Working Paper No. 115, Corr......
-
Court of Appeal
...andNaughton were charged with murder and were convicted, the one after aplea, the other after a trial. In R v Cheema(1994]2WLR147; 98Cr App R 195, the wife was then charged jointly with her son. She was272 CourtofAppealcharged with conspiracy to murder and with attempted murder and hewas ch......