R v Cox (Peter Stanley)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE WINN |
| Judgment Date | 30 November 1967 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1967] EWCA Crim J1130-2 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
| Docket Number | No. 1941/67 |
| Date | 30 November 1967 |
[1967] EWCA Crim J1130-2
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Lord Justice Winn
Mr. Justice Fenton Atkinson
and
Mr. Justice Browne
No. 1941/67
MR. A. E. HOLDSWORTH appeared as Counsel for the Crown.
MR. J. HAZAN appeared as Counsel for the Appellant.
This applicant was arraigned at Essex Assizes on the 12th of April on a count which, as originally framed, charged him with conspiracy in Essex with a man called Douthwaite, for that on divers days between the 1st of September, 1966, and the 26th of October, 1966, in the county of Essex they had conspired together to defraud such persons as should thereafter be induced to part with goods to them by falsely representing that they or one of them had an account at Lloyds Bank Ltd., Rayleigh in Essex. That was the original count.
On the arraignment, learned Counsel, Mr. Holdsworth, who was prosecuting, applied for leave to amend that count. Learned Counsel who was then defending, not Mr. Hazan who has appeared on this application, stated that he did not oppose that amendment. The amendment; so sought and granted was to add the words "and to sell such goods" at the end of the indictment so that it amounted to a charge that they had also conspired together to sell such goods as they might obtain by those misrepresentations, in Essex. It appears that both learned Counsel thought that that amendment made a material, difference to the affect of the count, That is quite plain from what was said in mitigation by learned Counsel for the Defence. He said that the difficulty he had felt was one of law and not of fact. "It is quite clear that they did come back to this country with the goods and that those goods had been disposed pf subsequently though it is not clear exactly by whom. In view of that it is right to say that my client then accepted my advice with respect to that point." He had said a little earlier that he had had in mind a certain reported case, no doubt that of Owen and Seth Smith reported in Volume 41 of the Criminal Appeal Reports at page 11, and had at one time thought on his instructions that it was doubtful whether at any initial stage there was an agreement to carry out the fraudulent transaction in France before they actually left England, and then he referred to the effect of their statements to the Police.
Notwithstanding that, it seem that learned Counsel for the Defence thought - and it, is quite plain from what Mr. Holdsworth has said to the Court today that he thought that it made this conspiracy indictable, or strengthened, as Mr. Holdsworth put it, the argument that the conspiracy was indictable, in England to say that part of the objects contemplated and intended by the conspiracy was that they would sell in England any goods which they obtained by false pretences abroad.
In the opinion of the Court, that addition was of no significance; as it seemed to the Court Mr. Holdsworth was ultimately constrained in argument - it is fair to him to say that he has been pressed hard In argument in this Court - to admit that, as framed after amendment, the count did not charge a conspiracy to commit any criminal offence by disposing of the goods in Essex after obtaining thorn abroad. What Mr. Holdsworth has said to this Court is that the count in the indictment road literally, road as a count descriptive of the offence charged, is capable of comprising a conspiracy not only to use in France fraudulently those blank cheques which were used there but also after returning to the United Kingdom to use here the residue of the cheques which might then be available. Stated as a proposition of interpretation of the wording of the count, that submission is undoubtedly accurate, but when applied to the substance and reality of this case it seems to the Court that it -is quite unreal, and quite beside the point so far as any relevant point is concerned. Upon the depositions to which this Court has been referred belatedly, there is no evidence of any use of any of the remaining cheques after the men concerned returned to the United Kingdom.
As the Court understands the facts, an individual, who no doubt was just as fraudulent as the two scoundrels who were brought before the Essex Assizes (that is to say, Douthwaite and the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
S v Basson
...in paras[218] and [220] appliedProsecutor v Dusko Tadic (1996) 35 International Legal Materials 32: dictumin para [129] appliedR v Cox [1968] 1 All ER 410 (CA): discussedR v Finta [1994] 1 SCR 701: referred toR v S (RD) [1997] 3 SCR 484 (SCC): referred toSouth West Africa, Second Phase, Jud......
-
S v Basson
...[218] and [220] applied D Prosecutor v Dusko Tadic (1996) 35 International Legal Materials 32: dictum in para [129] applied R v Cox [1968] 1 All ER 410 (CA): R v Finta [1994] 1 SCR 701: referred to R v S (RD) [1997] 3 SCR 484 (SCC): referred to South West Africa, Second Phase, Judgment 1966......
-
Sociedade Nacional de Combusitveis de Angola UEE and Others v Lundqvist and Others
...full facts have not been investigated. 29We have been referred to Board of Trade v. Owen [1957] A.C. 602, R. v. Harden [1963] 1 Q.B. 8, R. v. Cox [1968] 1 W.L.R. 88, Tracey v. Director of Public Prosecutions [1971] A.C. 537, R. v. Brixton Prison Governor, ex parte Rush [1969] 1 All E.R.......
-
Treacy v DPP; R v Treacy
...in argument in the House of Lords: Reg. v. Blythe (1898) 4 B.C.R. 276. Reg. v. Cooke (1858) 1 F. & F. 64. Reg. v. Cox (Peter Stanley) [1968] 1 W.L.R. 88; [1968] 1 All E.R. 410, C.A. Reg. v. Jeffrey (1842) 1 Broun 337. Reg. v. Nillins (1884) 53 L.J.M.C. 157, D.C. Reg. v. Peters (1886) 16 Q.B......
-
Defining the Limits of the Common-Law, South African and European Privilege against Self-Incrimination
...as allowing the admiss ibility of incrim inating evidence, G eorge v Coombes [1978] Crim LR 234; R v Sa vundra and Walke r (1968) 52 Crim App R 63768 S 9 of the Crimin al Damages Act 1971; s 72 of the Supreme Court Act; s 31 of the Thef t Act expressly abrogate the privilege and any incri m......