R v Collins (Steven William George)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE EDMUND DAVIES |
| Judgment Date | 05 May 1972 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1972] EWCA Crim J0505-1 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
| Docket Number | No. 5255/B/71 |
| Date | 05 May 1972 |
[1972] EWCA Crim J0505-1
Lord Justice Edmund Davies
Lord Justice Stephenson
and
Mr. Justice Boreham
No. 5255/B/71
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
MR. P. PERRINS appeared on behalf of the Appellant.
MR. F. IRWIN appeared on behalf of the Crown.
This is about as extraordinary a case as my bretheren and I have ever heard either on the Bench or while at the Bar. Stephen William George Collins was convicted of burglary with intent to commit rape on 29th October 1971 at the Essex Assizes and he was sentenced to twenty one months' imprisonment. He is a 19-year old youth, and he appeals against that conviction by the Certificate of the learned Judge. The terms in which that certificate is expressed reveals that tie learned Judge was clearly troubled about the case and the conviction.
Let me relate the facts. Were they put into a novel or portrayed on the stage, they would be regarded as being so improbable as to be unworthy of serious consideration and verging at times on farce. At about 2 o'clock in the early morning of Saturday 24th July of last year, a young lady of 18 went to bed at her mother's home in Colchester. She had spent the evening with her boy-friend. She had taken a certain amount of drink, and it may be that this fact affords some explanation of her inability to answer satisfactorily certain crucial questions put to her.
She has the habit of sleeping without wearing night apparel in a bed which is very near the lattice-type window of her room. At one stage on her evidence she seemed to be saying that the bed was close up against the window which, in accordance with her practice, was wide open. In the photographs which we have before us, however, there appears to be a gap of some sort between the two, but the bed was clearly quite near the window.
At about 3. 30 or 4 o'clock she awoke and she then saw in the moonlight a vague form crouched in the open window. She was unable to remember, and this is important, whether the form was on the outside of the window sill or on that part of the sill which was inside the room, and for reasons which will later become clear, that seemingly narrow point is of crucial importance.
The young lady then realised several things: first of all that the form in the window was that of a male; secondly that he was a naked male; and thirdly that he was a naked male with an erect penis. She also saw in the moonlight that his hair was blond. She thereupon leapt to the conclusion that her boy-friend with whom for some time she had been on terms of regular and frequent sexual intimacy, was paying her an ardent nocturnal visit. She promptly sat up in bed, and the man descended from the sill and joined her in bed and they had full sexual intercourse. But there was something about him which made her think that things were not as they usually were between her and her boyfriend. The length of his hair, his voice as they had exchanged what was described as 'love talk', and other features led her to the conclusion that somehow there was something different. So she turned on the bed-side light, saw that her companion was not her boy-friend. So she slapped the face of the intruder, who was none other than the Appellant. He said to her, "Give me a good time tonight", and got hold of her arm, but she bit him and told him to go. She then went into the bathroom and he promptly vanished.
The complainant said that she would not have agreed to intercourse if she had known that the person sntering her room was not her boy-friend. But there was no suggestion of any force having been used upon her, and the intercourse which took place was undoubtedly effected with no resistence on her part.
Collins was seen by the police at about 10.30 later that same morning. According to the police, the conversation which took place then elicited these points: He was very lustful the previous night. He had taken a lot of drink, and we may here note that drink (which to him is a very real problem) had braught this young man into trouble several times before, but never for an offence of this kind. He went on to say that he knew the complainant because he ad worked around the house. On this occasion, desiring sexual intercourse - and according to the police evidence he had added that he was determined to have a girl, by force if necessary, although that part of the police evidence he challenged - he went on to say that he walked around the house, saw a light in an upstairs bedroom, and he knew that this was the girl's bedroom. He found a step ladder, leaned it against the wall and climbed up and looked into the bedroom. What he could see inside through the wide open window was a girl who was naked and asleep. So he descended the ladder and stripped off all his clothes, with the exception of his socks, because apparently he took the view if the girl's mother entered the bedroom it would be easier to effect a rapid escape if he had his socks on than if he was in his bare feet. That is a matter about which we are not called upon to express any view, and would in any event find ourselves unable to express one.
Having undressed, he then climbed the ladder and pulled himself up on to the window sill. His version of the matter is that he was pulling himself in wheh she awoke. She then got up and knelt on the bed, she put her arms around his neck and body, and she seemed to pull him into the bed. He went on, "I was rather dazed because I didn't think she would want to nnow me. We kissed and cuddled for about ten of fifteen minutes and then I had it away with her but found it hard because I had had so much to drink".
The police officer said to the Appellant, "It appears that it was your intention to have intercourse with this girl by force if necessary, and it was only pure coincidence that this girl was "under the impression that you were her boy-friend and apparently that is why she consented to allowing you to have sexual intercourse with her". It was alleged that he then said, "Yes, I feel awful about this. It is the worst day of my life, but I know it could have been worse". Thereupon the officer said to him - and he challenges this - "What do you mean, you know it could have been worse?", to which he is alleged to have replied "Well, my trouble is drink and I got very frustrated. As I've told you, I only wanted to have it away with a girl and I'm only glad I haven't really hurt her". Then he made a statement under caution, in the course of which he said "When I stripped off and got up the ladder I made my mind up that I was going to try and have it away with this girl. I feel terrible about this now, but I had too much to drink. I am sorry for what I have done."
In the course of his testimony, Collins said that he would not have gone into the room if the girl had not knelt on the bed and beckoned him into the room. He said that if she had objected immediately to his being there or to his having intercourse he would not have persisted. While he was keen on having sexual intercourse that night, it wee only if he could find someone who was willing. He strongly denied having told the police that he would, if necessary, have pushed over some girl for the purpose of having intercourse.
There was a submission of no case to answer on the ground that the evidence did not support the charge, particularly that ingredient of it which had reference to entry into the house "as a trespasser". But the submission was overruled, and, as we have already related, he gave evidence.
Now, one feature of the case which remained at the conclusion of the evidence in great obscurity is where exactly Collins was at the moment when, according to him, the girl manifested that she was welcoming him. Was he kneeling on the sill outside the window or was he already inside the room, having climbed through the window frame, and kneeling upon the inner sill? It was a crucial matter, for there were certainly three ingredients that it was incumbent upon the Crown to establish. Under section 9 of the Theft Act of 1968, which renders a person...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte A
...review of his decision to refuse him credit for this period. Collins J. held that he was bound by the decision of the Court of Appeal in Reg. v. Collins (1995) 16 Cr. App. R. (S.) 156 to hold that the period while the respondent was in the care of the local authority subject to the conditi......
-
Haughton v Smith
... ... Baron Bramwell, anticipating the decisions in Collins (infra) said (ibid): "The argument that a man putting his hand ... ...
-
Hill and Astwood v R
...Charles Hill and Dennis Stephen Astwood Appellant and The Queen Respondent D Kessaram for Astwood A Hodgson for Hill R v CollinsUNK [1972] 2 All ER 1105 Breaking and entering — Concerned together — Appeal against conviction and sentence JUDGMENT Hill and Astwood were jointly indicted. There......
-
Re Central Funds Costs Order
... ... 29 More telling, but on the same lines, is the case of Collins , 1970 1 Queen's Bench at page 710 ... This was a case where in the course ... ...
-
'Born again' in barbados: the theft act, 1992
...in order to avoid converting the offence of burglary into a strict liability offence. As the jury had not been invited to consider 111 [1973] Q.B. 100. 112 Sec Conway v. George Wimpey Co. Ltd. [1951J 2 K.B. 266, at pp. 273-4 per Asquith LJ. 113 At p. 107. The matter is discussed generally a......
-
On sacrilege
...77 Stealing and inflicting grievous bodily harm and, in both cases, attempt. 74 Brown [1985] Crim. L.R. 212 (C.A.), and cf. Collins [1973] Q.B. 100. 136 Caribbean Law Review Secondly, though there is nothing new in offences which strike at intention to commit an offence (as here coupled wit......
-
Recent Judicial Decisions
...agent. To what extent can the reasoning beextended to obtaining goods on credit?October 1972 314 THE SATISFIED BURGLARR. v. Collins [1972] 3 W.L.R. 243 Court of AppealCollins had been drinking and was feeling lustful. He sawa light in a house bedroom, found a ladder and climbed up.He could ......