R v Cross (Patrick)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE |
| Judgment Date | 30 March 1973 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1973] EWCA Crim J0330-2 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
| Docket Number | No. 4640/A/72 |
| Date | 30 March 1973 |
[1973] EWCA Crim J0330-2
The Lord Chief Justice of England (Lord Widgery)
Lord Justice James
and
Mr. Justice Nield
No. 4640/A/72
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
(CRIMINAL DIVISION)
Royal Courts of Justice
MR. M.A. JOHN STONE appeared as Counsel for the Appellant.
MR. L. GERBER appeared as Counsel for the Crown.
On the 18th August 1972 at the Crown Court for Inner London, the Appellant was convicted and sentenced for a number of offences, attempted theft, having articles for use in connection with theft, another count of attempted theft, malicious damage, having articles for use in connection with theft, attempted burglary and burglary. He was sentenced to a number of sentences to run concurrently the longest of which was eighteen months, and therefore the effective sentence was eighteen months. He appealed against his sentence by leave of the single Judge, and the matter came on for hearing before this Court on the 18th January this year, the Court being presided over by Lord Justice Megaw.
The Court heard argument in support of the Appeal against sentence, and was minded to allow the appeal and to substitute a probation order in respect of the sentences of eighteen months. It is not necessary to go into the matter in detail, because it suffices to say that this Court having considered the matter in detail considered that a probation order might properly be imposed in view of the fact that this young man seemed to have taken on a better way of life since the offences were committed.
Accordingly, he was asked if he was prepared to be put on probation for two years; he consented, and the Court ordered accordingly.
Later in the same day, it was discovered that the Appellant had been convicted of carrying an offensive weapon without authority, an offence which was committed after these matters first came under consideration, and of which the Court had no knowledge when putting him on probation, as I have described. The Court, I think, took the view that the Appellant had at any rate been less than frank in answering questions which had been put to him, and obviously was of the opinion that the decision to allow this Appeal and substitute a probation order was something which ought to be reconsidered in the light of this additional information. Accordingly, later in the day, he was brought back, these matters were discussed before the Court, and the upshot of it all was that the Court decided to set aside its previous judgment, and have the case relisted for a fresh hearing, when these additional matters might be taken into consideration.
At that time the learned Registrar who was sitting in Court had made a note of the decision of the Court, and the note which he had made read in the following terms: "the Court has allowed the Appeal and quashed the sentence passed at the trial and made in place thereof a probation order for two years".
In due course the matter came back for hearing before this Court as at present constituted, as had been contemplated by the order at the previous hearing. The first point taker on behalf of the Appellant before us had been that the Court has no power to set aside its previous probation order, that it was in fact functus officio as soon as it had made that order and that accordingly we have no jurisdiction to consider the matter, it being finally determined at the earlier hearing. We have had the advantage of a good deal of argument on this particular issue, because it does not seem to have arisen for consideration before. Not having arisen before, we have had to consider the jurisdiction of this Court to withdraw and alter its decisions by the application of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R v Daniel
...came prepared only to make submissions on the merits of the appellant's application. I had in mind, however, the decision of this Court in R. v. Cross (1973) 57 Criminal Appeal Reports 660. The headnote of that report is as follows: "The Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) has inherent juri......
-
R v Hughes (James Francis)
...it or to hear argument upon grounds not ruled upon in the House. The reference to misinformation as to some relevant matter may be to R v Cross [1973] 2 All ER 920, where an appeal against sentence had been allowed without the court being told by the defendant that he had subsequently been......
-
R v Mohammed Abdullah Yasain
...recorded in the relevant record. 20 The question as to what constituted the relevant record of this court was first examined in R v Cross (Patrick) [1973] QB 937, 940–941. After a hearing in which this court allowed an appeal against sentence, the decision was recorded in a note of the Regi......
- Fai General Insurance Company Ltd v Southern Cross Exploration Nl