R v Crawford (Charisse)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE |
| Judgment Date | 05 June 1997 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1997] EWCA Crim J0605-19 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
| Docket Number | No. 96/6554/X2 |
| Date | 05 June 1997 |
[1997] EWCA Crim J0605-19
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL CRIMINAL DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
The Strand
London WC2
The Lord Chief Justice of England
(Lord Bingham of Cornhill)
Mr Justice Maurice Kay
and
Mr Justice Toulson
No. 96/6554/X2
MR MICHAEL HOUSE appeared on behalf of THE APPELLANT
MR JASON DUNN-SHAW appeared on behalf of THE CROWN
Thursday 5 June 1997
In August 1996 the appellant stood trial jointly with a co-defendant in the Crown Court at Southwark before Mr Assistant Recorder Carey-Hughes and a jury. The main issue which arises on the appeal is whether the Assistant Recorder was correct to rule that the co-defendant might cross-examine the appellant on her previous convictions.
The appellant and her co-defendant, a Miss Anderson, were jointly charged on an indictment which contained one count of robbery. The allegation against them was that on 10 April 1996 they robbed Tasleem Jamal of her handbag and its contents.
The prosecution case is summarised with admirable accuracy and clarity by the Assistant Recorder in his ruling on this issue, where he said:
"The prosecution case put shortly is this: a Miss Jamal, the victim in the case, went into some lavatories in McDonald's in Leicester Square. In there, there were other people. While she was in there, three black women came in. They pushed her and tugged at her bag which was on a strap over her shoulder, eventually breaking the strap and making off with the bag. It is Miss Jamal's evidence that at the time that the theft actually took place it was only she herself and the three black women who were present in the lavatories. After the bag had been taken from her, Miss Jamal gave evidence that the skinny one of the three black women—inferentially Miss Crawford—made her way out of the lavatories closely followed by Miss Jamal, who shouted that her bag had been stolen, with Miss Jamal being followed in turn closely by the other two black women—inferentially Miss Anderson and a girl who has been referred to only as 'Lisa' who was never apprehended. It is Miss Jamal's case that all three of the black women took part in the robbery and indeed all three actively pulled at the bag while it was on her shoulder.
In her interview with the police, Miss Anderson accepted that she had visited McDonald's and the effect of what she had to say was that her two companions—again, inferentially Miss Crawford and the absent Lisa—were there with her. But she witnessed no robbery but an alarm had been raised and she and her two companions, Lisa and Miss Crawford, ran out of the lavatories.
However, the case which has been put on her behalf by Miss Krish in this court is somewhat different. The case put by Miss Krish is that all three women, that is to say Miss Anderson, Miss Crawford and Lisa, were in the lavatories with Miss Jamal when the robbery took place and that the robbery was carried out by Miss Crawford and Lisa with Miss Anderson as a mere by-stander.
In the course of her evidence, Miss Crawford has accepted that she herself used the lavatories at McDonald's at the material time but the effect of her evidence is that she, Miss Crawford, visited the lavatories on her own, that is to say, without her two companions, and that she had emerged from the lavatories by the time her two companions went in. She was sitting in the body of the restaurant when she heard a cry to the effect that something had been stolen (and that by inference must be very shortly after the robbery took place if the jury are to accept the evidence of Miss Jamal) and that shortly after that alarm had been raised and she had heard it, her co-defendant Miss Anderson, accompanied by the girl Lisa, emerged from the lavatories."
Thus the prosecution case, founded on the evidence of Miss Jamal, was that she had been robbed by the appellant and Miss Anderson and Lisa jointly in the lavatories at McDonald's at Leicester Square. She testified that the appellant left the lavatory first, followed by her (Miss Jamal), who was in turn followed by Lisa and Miss Anderson.
We have before us a transcript of the evidence which Miss Crawford gave at the trial. She described how she entered the restaurant with Miss Anderson and Lisa and how they all ordered food. She then said that she went to the lavatory on her own, leaving the others at the table and, having used the lavatory, returned to the table. She then said that the other two went on their own to the lavatory, leaving her in the restaurant at the table where she remained for a period which she estimated at eight minutes. She then said that the others came out and that she heard a girl shouting about her purse having been taken at the time when the others came out. She then said that she walked out of the restaurant with Miss Anderson and Lisa. In cross-examination she stated in terms that she was not in any way involved in the theft and that she did not go to the lavatory at the time when Miss Anderson and Lisa had been there.
On behalf of Miss Anderson it was put to Miss Jamal in cross-examination that Miss Anderson had been present in the lavatory when the robbery occurred, but that she had taken no part and that she had left after Miss Jamal. It follows, therefore, that both the appellant and Miss Anderson challenged Miss Jamal's account that they were party to robbing her, the appellant because she said she was not there at the time of the robbery in the lavatory and had nothing whatever to do with it, and Miss Anderson because she said she had played no part whatever in the robbery, although she had been there at the time when the robbery had occurred. On one point, however, Miss Jamal, the appellant and Miss Anderson were all agreed, namely, that immediately after the robbery had occurred Miss Anderson followed Miss Jamal out of the lavatory. On that point there was no issue between Miss Anderson and Miss Jamal and no issue between the appellant and Miss Jamal either.
During the trial it fell to the appellant, as the first defendant on the indictment, to give evidence first, which she did to the effect summarised. Counsel for Miss Anderson then applied, in the absence of the jury, to cross-examine the appellant about her convictions, one of which was a very recent conviction for robbery. The Assistant Recorder was referred to the relevant and familiar statutory provision: section 1 of the Criminal Evidence Act 1898. That provides that a defendant shall be a competent witness for the defence whether charged solely or jointly. That general rule is, however, subject to provisos. The relevant proviso is paragraph ( f) (iii) which reads as follows:
"A person charged and called as a witness in pursuance of this Act shall not be asked, and if asked shall not be required to answer, any question tending to show that he has committed or been convicted of or been charged with any offence other than that wherewith he is then charged, or is of bad character, unless—
….
(iii) he has given evidence against any other person charged in the same proceedings."
The subparagraph is plainly directed to the situation where a defendant is called as a witness and gives evidence against a co-defendant jointly charged in the same proceedings.
The meaning of the statutory reference to "evidence against any other person" has been the subject of judicial consideration. In Murdoch v Taylor [1965] AC 574, at 592, Lord Donovan stated:
"I myself would….simply say that 'evidence against' means evidence which supports the prosecution's case in a material respect or which undermines the defence of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
David Peter Gallagher V. Her Majesty's Advocate
...it did not undermine it. Reference was also made to Reg. v Davis [1975] 1 WLR 345, R v Bruce (1975) 61 Crim App R 123, Reg. v Crawford [1997] 1 WLR 1329 and R v Kirkpatrick [1998] Crim LR 63. In Reg. v Adair [1990] Crim LR 571 at page 572 Ward J had spoken of an accused who would have "drop......
-
R (S) v Waltham Forest Youth Court
...Such a reading, it is submitted, would have sufficient clarity and certainty. An analogy was drawn with R v Charisse Crawford [1998] 1 Cr. App. R. 338, in which the Court of Appeal recognised that a co-defendant was entitled to cross-examine an accused person on her previous convictions in......
-
Francis v The Queen
...incriminate the other. (See Grondkowski [1946] K.B. 369, Moghal (1977) 65 Cr. App. R. 56, Edwards [1998] Crim L.R. 756 and Crawford [1997] 1 W.L.R. 1329).” 24 In our judgment, bearing in mind that the question of separate trials was entirely one of judicial discretion, nothing has been adva......
-
The Queen v Pamphill Prevost Simon Power Shawn Henry
...which will incriminate the other Grondkowski [1946] KB 369; Moghal (1977) 65 Cr App R 56; Edwards [1998] Crim LR 756; Crawford [1997] 1 WLR 1329). (b) Where the prosecution case against one accused (A1) includes evidence that is admissible against him but not against his co-accused (A2),......