R v Condron (William)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE STUART-SMITH |
| Judgment Date | 17 October 1996 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1996] EWCA Crim J1017-26 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
| Docket Number | No. 9507889 Z2 9507591 Z2 |
| Date | 17 October 1996 |
[1996] EWCA Crim J1017-26
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL CRIMINAL DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2A 2LL
Lord Justice Stuart-Smith
Mr Justice Mantell
and
Mr Justice Moses
No. 9507889 Z2 9507591 Z2
MR A SHAW QC appeared on behalf of the Appellant
MR N LAWSON QC & MR M SEYMOOR appeared on behalf of the Crown
Thursday 17th October 1996
On 2nd November 1995, in the Crown Court at Kingston Upon Thames, the applicants were convicted (by a majority of 9:1) of being concerned in supplying a Class A controlled drug (heroin) (Count 1) and possessing a Class A controlled drug (heroin) with intent to supply (Count 2).
A co-accused James Curtis was acquitted of Counts 1 and 2.
They both appeal against conviction with leave of the Single Judge.
The Condrons and Curtis were admitted heroin addicts. They lived in adjacent flats, the Condrons at No. 51, Curtis at No. 50—on the third floor of Cubitt House, Clapham. At the back of the flats the Condrons' balcony was very close to Curtis's bedroom window, providing easy communication between the two. The prosecution case was that all three were party to a continuing arrangement whereby Curtis admitted heroin users to his flat and supplied them with heroin and, if they wished, the facility to use it on the spot, obtaining the heroin as necessary from the Condron's flat. It was not disputed that on 28th April 1995 the Condrons had a quantity of heroin in their flat. The prosecution maintained that, as regards at least part of it, it was in the joint possession of the Condrons and Curtis, as part of their joint enterprise to supply it to customers who came to Curtis's flat. In support of their case the prosecution relied on police observations on the two flats between 24th and 28th April 1995. On and after 25th April the observation was supported by a video film. The observation showed a number of people coming to Curtis's flat; some of these were seen to speak to the Condrons via the window and balcony. William Condron was seen to hand a package over. Karen was seen to receive a cigarette packet from someone behind the curtain, have a conversation, go into her flat and then return with the cigarette packet and hand it over. It was said that the behaviour of the persons concerned was furtive.
The Crown relied on all the circumstances of the case, including Curtis's admission that heroin users had visited his flat, and the fact that William Condron, on his own account, and with Karen Condron's admitted knowledge, regularly purchased his household's supply of heroin. It was suggested that the three of them, who were all in receipt of Social Security benefits, funded their own heroin addiction by this small-scale dealing. There were exceptional security arrangements at the Condrons' flat, which had a steel gate inside the front door and a lift gate over the only large window.
At 12.40pm on 28th April teams of police officers entered both flats. In No. 51, William Condron was in the kitchen apparently stuffing small wraps into his mouth and drinking water. The officers failed to stop him swallowing something but could not say if it was only one, as he said, or more. At the time he said it was cannabis. In court he said it was heroin. He and Karen were arrested and cautioned and taken, after an hour, to Kennington police station. In No. 50 a man called Brown was in the living room and Curtis was in the bedroom. He, too, was taken to the police station.
Each flat was searched and photographed. In Curtis's flat there were a large number of items that indicated drug abuse, most significantly a large number of apparently used wraps of the kind used to contain heroin, but now empty. One of these had an edge which exactly matched one of the wraps found on the Condrons' kitchen floor.
In the Condrons' flat were found 16 small wraps, and one large wrap, of heroin. They had originally been wrapped in a square of plastic, knotted, and then a circle of plastic, knotted. These squares and circles had been cut from striped carrier bags (which was a common way of wrapping small amounts of heroin). The small wraps were of irregular amounts by commercial standards, of between .07 and .10 grammes. No scales appropriate for weighing small amounts were found (but it was accepted that not all dealers had scales so that the irregular amounts were of no significance either way; indeed, it was William Condron's case that he had purchased heroin in that form from a dealer). One wrap was found, the edge of which matched that on the empty wrap found in Curtis's flat. There were also found two sorts of methadone, £70 in some jeans in the living room and £20 on the kitchen table, a polythene bag, scalpel and knife, plastic cut from a plastic carrier bag in the shape of a ring which the prosecution suggested was an off-cut from making a circular wrap—although no matching piece was found—and some resinous burnt-looking spoons, admittedly used for cooking up heroin. A cut up condom and pieces of polythene were allegedly found on the ground below the window.
At the police station the Condrons' solicitor, Mr Delbourgo, considered that they were unfit to be interviewed because of their drug withdrawal symptoms, and he advised them not to answer questions. However, the Force Medical Examiner, a doctor, considered that they were fit for interview. They and Curtis all made no comment to the questions put to them about the incidents recorded in the police observation. The prosecution claimed that in the circumstances they could reasonably have been expected to mention the explanations they gave in court.
The Condrons and Curtis gave evidence, each admitting to being a heroin addict but denying that heroin was ever supplied by the Condrons to Curtis in the way, and for the purpose, alleged by the prosecution or at all.
William Condron had previous convictions for dishonesty but none for drug dealing, and he had never sold or supplied drugs. He regularly purchased heroin but only from his own funds and only for the use of himself and Karen. He bought it in 3.5 gramme packets whenever he was able. This was all he could afford at the time. When he could not they used methadone, for which Karen had a prescription, although it was a poor substitute. The amount of heroin he was able to buy during a particular period, and the amount he spent on it, thus varied. As regards their income, apart from their Social Security payments (which totalled £145 or £155 a week), William Condron did odd labouring jobs from time to time, and bought and sold collectible comics. He also shoplifted. Karen made and sold models, from which she made a profit of £170 that year. She spent £50 a week on housekeeping, and often ran into debt on essential outgoings rather than foregoing buying drugs. The £70 in the jeans pocket was Karen's for paying bills. The £20 was William's. The security gates at the flat had been there a long time. They were installed by Karen's father as she had had burglaries and wanted protection.
They were on very friendly terms with Curtis, and communication between the two households took place via the balcony at the back. This was the easiest way as the doors to their respective flats were some distance apart. Curtis frequently borrowed small sums of money or household items from them. He would knock on the party wall and one of them would go onto the balcony to see what he wanted. They never passed drugs to him. He obtained his drugs from the same suppliers as they did.
On 27th April William Condron bought 3.5 grammes, and 18 tiny .10 gramme packets of heroin for a total of £180. They did not use any of it that evening. Next morning at about 9.00am, as William was having difficulty with his veins and could not inject himself, they went to see Curtis, who, as a favour, gave William a "hit" in the back of the leg, using one of the .10 gramme packets. Curtis had thrown the wrap from it onto the floor, which must have been the one found which matched another in the Condrons' flat. They gave detailed innocent explanations in relation to the police observations. Such explanations could have been given in answer to specific questions by the police in interview, particularly questions in relation to the package and cigarette packet.
Both appellants said that when interviewed by the police they were suffering from heroin withdrawal symptoms and they relied on their solicitor's advice that in view of their condition they should not answer questions.
Curtis, when giving evidence, said that as a heroin addict for many years he knew many suppliers and users. He had a prescription for daily methadone and used about £15 worth of heroin a day in addition, which he was able to fund out of his social security benefit as he lived extremely economically. Up to seven or eight junkie friends used to visit him a day, some to be sociable or to look for other friends, and some to use heroin at his flat. They would use it there as they did not want to do so in their own homes, and were not allowed to use it on their suppliers' premises. Also, he would provide them with syringes, vitamin C and water in ampoules for "cooking up" heroin for injection. (He obtained these free from the Stockwell Drug Project). In exchange these visitors often gave him heroin. He never had any from the Condrons. The plastic wraps found in his flat were like those used by 90% of dealers.
He confirmed the Condrons' account of their friendship and his frequent borrowing, with communication being by the balcony. He also confirmed their visit at 9.00am on 28th April, when he gave William a "hit" in the leg with...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R v Daniel (Anthony Junior)
...leave the issue to the jury to decide." 47 These "formal conditions" are a synthesis of what had been said in R v Cowan [1996] 1 CAR 1, R v Condron [1997] 1 CAR 185 and R v Robal [1997] (unreported) T.9602955X4. Our attention was drawn to the JSB Specimen Directions of June 1995 and Februar......
-
R v Chenia (Shokat)
...of the alleged defects in the summing up in the instant case in turn. 53 i) Failure to give the last direction suggested in Cowan 5440. In Condron [1997] 1 Cr App R 185, which was decided before the trial in the instant case and which was subsequently considered by the ECHR in Condron v UK......
-
R v Seaton (Oral)
...concerned with section 34 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, which of course did not exist at the time of Wilmot. 29 R v Condron and Condron [1997] 1 Cr App R 185 was the first case in which this court gave general guidance on the approach to the new section 34. The defendants w......
-
R v Robert Webber, Paul Ashton, Paul Steven Lyons
...predictably, spawned a considerable body of Court of Appeal authority. It is unnecessary to comment on the general guidance given in R v Condron and Condron [1997] 1 Cr App R 185 (save to observe that the summary in paragraph 15-338(c) of the 2003 edition of Archbold omits the potentially ......
-
Subject Index
.... . 145,149, 153–155R v Cole and Keet [2007] EWCA Crim 1924,[2007]1 WLR2716 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98, 112,114R vCondron [1997] 1WLR 827 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157R vCowan [1996] QB373 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157R vDaniel [1998] 1Qd R 499. . . . . . . . . . . .......
-
The evidentiary value of adverse inferences from the accused's right to silence
...to a third party but not to the police or prosecution'. 51 (1997) 2 Cr App R 27. 52 [1998] CrimLR 818. 53 R v Conclron and Conclron (1997) 1 Cr App R185. 54 R v Napper [1996] CrimLR 591. © Juta and Company (Pty) The evidentiary value of adverse inferences from the accused's right to silence......
-
Silence: Lord Taylor's Legacy
...Crown Court [1987] RTR337, 346.36 [1997] 2 Cr App R 27. 29.37 [1997] 2 Cr App R 27. 31 per Lord Bingham.38 [1997]1 WLR 827. In Rv KavanaghLEXIS.CA.7February1997counselfortheappellantsaidthatforthediscretionto be exercisedthecircumstancesmustbe'exceptional'.TheCourtofAppealdidnotdisagree. Co......
-
Silence and common sense
...fertile grounds for appeal and92Ibid. See R v Mountford [1999] Crim L R 575; R v Gill [2001]1 Cr App R 160.93Condron and Condron [1997] 1 Cr App R 185.94Dennis (n 73) 33, who refers to the decisions in Roble [1997] Crim L R 449; Condron andCondron (n 93), Condron v United Kingdom (n 72), Be......