R v Cole
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE |
| Judgment Date | 09 March 1965 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1965] EWCA Crim J0309-1 |
| Court | Court of Criminal Appeal |
| Docket Number | No. 1424/64 |
| Date | 09 March 1965 |
[1965] EWCA Crim J0309-1
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
Royal Courts of Justice
The Lord Chief Justice of England (Lord Parker)
Mr. Justice Marshall
and
Mr. Justice Megaw
No. 1424/64
MR. MAITLAND LINCOLN appeared as Counsel for the Appellant.
MR. DONALD FARQUHARSON appeared as Counsel for the Crown.
In June last this Appellant was convicted at the Central Criminal Court of armed robbery and was sentenced to fifteen years' imprisonment. It is against that conviction that he now appeals by leave of the single Judge on what are really points of law.
The matter arose out of a well planned robbery on a big scale. A gang of six men, having obtained the key, got into premises at Barclays Bank, hid themselves, and when Mr. Woodward the Manager and his assistant came down into the vault at the bank, Mr. Woodward and one of the assistants was held up at pistol point, money was removed from the safe, and the gang retreated, having stolen over £52,000. That was on the 27th February; two days later the Appellant paid into two different banks in Woolwich part of the proceeds amounting to £6,200, and a search of his flat revealed pieces of wax seals used by Barclays Bank, one piece of which, according to the forensic evidence, exactly fitted a piece found outside the bank. The Appellant was in fact not arrested until the 6th April.
Despite the fact that they were wearing stocking masks, Mr. Woodward and one of the assistants, Mr. Shrubsole claimed to identify the Appellant at an identification parade. The defence was an alibi, that the Appellant was driving his daughter to work, that they had killed a puppy and that he called on the owner and she had accepted his offer to bury the puppy. He completed his journey, spoke to his daughter's supervisor, a Mrs. Ayres and then drove back to his brother-in-law, a Mr. Fuller and buried the puppy. He called Mrs. Ayres and Mr. Fuller and others to support his alibi. As to the £6,200 he said that a man called Wally Peake had given it to him to look after. As I have said, it was a very serious crime, and there was clearly ample evidence against the Appellant as being concerned in this armed robbery.
Before this Court, complaint is made of the manner in which the counts in the indictment were dealt with. The matter had a somewhat long history. It came first before Mr. Justice Widgery, and when the Appellant was put up to plead, he pleaded not guilty to a count of conspiracy to rob, not guilty to the armed robbery but on a third count of receiving the £6,200 he pleaded guilty. It was then suggested, as has been suggested to this Court, that once that plea of guilty was recorded, it ranked as a conviction, and as no man could be convicted both of receiving and of stealing, the prosecution were not entitled to continue on the more serious charge of armed robbery. It was in those circumstances that Mr. Justice Widgery, after hearing argument, ruled that the right course was that the Appellant should stand his trial for armed robbery, and that the proper way of enabling that to be done was to decline to accept the plea of guilty on receiving. He accordingly directed that a plea of not guilty should be entered on that count. The Jury in fact disagreed, and the matter came before another Jury when Mr. Justice Lawton was the Judge, in June. On that occasion it was sought to enable the Appellant to plead again in order that he might again plead guilty to the charge of receiving. Mr. Justice Lawton refused to allow that, and indeed doubted whether he had any jurisdiction to vary Mr. Justice Widgery's order. However, that trial also proved abortive, and the next day, I think it was, before another Jury the Appellant was tried. At the sitting of the Court on that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Griffiths v R
-
R v Hazeltine
...that he is not guilty of wounding with intent but guilty to unlawful wounding. 6 A case such as this is quite different from a case such as R v. Coe, 49 C.A.R. 199 where there were two counts in the indictment, one charging a serious offence, one a lesser offence. That case lays down the co......
- New Tuck Shen v PP
- Chen Chong and Others v PP