R v Daniel
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE LAWTON |
| Judgment Date | 21 October 1976 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1976] EWCA Crim J1021-12 |
| Docket Number | No. 960/C/76 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
| Date | 21 October 1976 |
[1976] EWCA Crim J1021-12
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Lord Justice Lawton
Mr. Justice Ackner
and
Mr. Justice Lawson
No. 960/C/76
MR. J. GRIGGS appeared on behalf of the Appellant.
The judgment which. I am about to read is the judgment of the Court. The text has been read and approved by Mr. Justice Ackner who cannot be here today.
This appeal comes before the Court on a reference made by the Secretary of State under section 17 of the Criminal Appeal Act, 1968. The circumstances in which that reference was made call for consideration in this judgment.
On 14th January 1976 at the Plymouth Crown Court the appellant pleaded guilty to burglary and was sentenced by Mr. Recorder A.E. Cox to eighteen months, imprisonment. He was then 45 years of age and had no less than twenty convictions recorded against him. Many were for housebreaking and shopbreaking. He was a persistent burglar. He came before the Recorder because during the late evening of 28th November 1975, an observant police officer noticed a light in the living accommodation above the shop of a Mr. Anderson at a time when that gentleman's motor car was not parked outside. The officer went to find out what was going on. He discovered that a glass panel in the door leading to the accommodation had been broken. Whilst he was summoning help on his portable radio the appellant came down from the living accommodation. The officer tried to stop him. There was a struggle. The appellant broke away but in the end he was arrested after another struggle. He had not stolen much.
The Recorder was asked to deal leniently with him because he professed to have seen the folly of his past criminal life and intended to keep away from crime for the future. A probation officer thought he meant to mend his ways. Sensibly the Recorder and the Magistrates sitting with him would have none of this and passed the sentence to which I have referred. Those who break into other people's houses to steal should expect to lose their liberty. There was nothing wrong with the sentence.
The appellant decided to apply for leave to appeal against his sentence. He had to apply for an extension of time in which to do so. His applications were considered by the single Judge on 7th April, 1976 and refused. On 15th April he was told of the refusals. On 23rd April, he renewed his applications to the full Court. By letter dated 11th May a firm of solicitors in Exeter told the Court that they had been instructed "on a private basis in connection with his application for leave to appeal against sentence". By letter dated 18th May, the same solicitors informed the Court that they had been put in funds and would be instructing counsel. Unfortunately this information was not noted on the cover of the appellant's file as it should have been. On 1st June the case went forward for listing, the date fixed being 14th June. Neither counsel nor the solicitors were told that the application would be considered on that date. If the Court has definite knowledge, as it had in this case, that counsel will appear, it has been the practice in the recent past for the Court to tell counsel when the application will be considered.
On 14th June the full Court considered the application. The members of the Court did not appreciate that the appellant wanted counsel to represent him. Lord Justice Scarman delivered the judgment of the Court. The extension of time was granted but the application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused. The next day the Court sent out notices of determination as it was required to do by rule 15 of the Criminal Appeals Rules 1968. The notificaiton to the Plymouth Crown Court would probably have arrived there on 16th June. The notification sent to the appellant in Exeter Prison reached him on that day. By letter dated 17th June, which was received by the Court on 18th June, the appellant's solicitors protested at what had happened and asked for the application to be brought before the Court again. By letter dated 18th June the Court admitted that there had been an administrative error and said that Lord Justice Scarman would be consulted. He was. On 18th July he ordered the application to be relisted as soon as possible. The earliest date was 14th September, when a Vacation Court would be sitting.
On that date counsel, Mr. Wilson Smith, appeared on behalf of the appellant. Understandably he 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 jurisdiction to withdraw and alter a decision or order made by the Court until such decision or order has been recorded by the proper officer of the Court of trial, pursuant to rule 15(2) of the Criminal Appeal Rules, 1968 and directions appearing in the Crown Court Manual."
In the reserved judgment of the Court, which was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R v Dean Pedley and Others
...Grantham (1969) 55 Cr App R 369, Berry [1991] 1 WLR 125 and Rowan [2007] EWCA Crim 1624. An example of the second situation is Daniel [1977] QB 364 where the court dealt with a renewed application without being aware that counsel was instructed to appear and thus without hearing 28 In th......
-
Shokut Zuman v R
...and Kuchhadia [2015] EWCA Crim 1939. 53 The principal authorities in relation to the exceptional jurisdiction to reopen an appeal include R v Daniel [1977] QB 364; R v Yasain [2016] QB 146; R v Gohil [2018] 1 WLR 3697; R v Rostami [2018] EWCA Crim 1383; R v Cunningham and Di Stefano [2......
-
Barnfather v Islington Education Authority
...limitation of Article 6.2 to procedural and evidential matters is supported by recent cases in the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division. In Daniel [2002] EWCA Crim. 959 there was a consideration of section 354(1)(b) of the Insolvency Act 1986 and the offence of concealing a debt, in relation ......
-
R v Hughes (James Francis)
...any substituted sentence stands as if passed there. Both the earlier decision in Grantham and the subsequent decision in R v Daniel [1977] 1 All ER 620 make clear that it is where there is administrative error which has deprived the appellant of a proper hearing that the power to re-list a......
-
Preliminary sections
...R.T.N.B.C. v. R.T.A.C.O. (1992) 7 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 251) 105………...............................34, 43, 128, 345 R. v. Daniel (1977) 2 W.L.R. 394; (1977) 1 All E.R. 620 CA……….............................................…128 Rackol Clinic & Maternity Hospital v. S.F.I. Co. Ltd. 91999) 7 N.W.L.R. (......