R v Dhillon (Kuljit Singh)

Wednesday 27th November 1996

On 28th June 1994, in the Crown Court at Exeter before Mantell J. this appellant was convicted of murder by the unanimous verdict of the jury.

Mr Gilbert Gray Q.C. submitted to us that the conviction was unsafe firstly because vital witnesses had not been called to give crucial evidence and secondly because the defence of provocation had not been left to the jury.

The Facts:

It was an evening in high summer and Mark Frajbis had driven his girlfriend Samantha Winchcombe and a friend Rob Goaman to the car park of the Bideford rugby ground to watch the boats go by on the river Torridge. That pastoral scene was rudely disturbed. Also parked in the car park were three large vans driven by Baljit Athwal, his brother Daljit Athwal and their friend Sukhdeep Singh, who was known as Lalli, which name we shall adopt for him. They were there to ply their wares the following day, 21st July 1993, at the Bideford market to be held in the football ground car park. Helpers accompanied each of the vans. Assisting Lalli was the deceased, Gurdlial Singh Hallat, who was affectionately called "uncle" because at the age of about 53 he was so much older than everyone else. At 9.29pm the appellant, known as "Bubby," drove his Mercedes van weighing 6.5 metric tonnes into the car park and reversed into a space alongside Baljit with the rear of the lorry to the river and the vehicle facing the car park. He was accompanied by his cousin Major Singh. There seemed to have been bad blood between these two factions. Major Singh emerged from his cab and accosted Baljit sitting in his. He accused him of having some two years earlier slashed the tyres of their lorry and he demanded to be compensated. Baljit got down from his van. There was a heated altercation. The events took an ugly turn when Major Singh drew a knife and behaved threateningly. Lalli was stabbed in the shoulder. He was enraged. He took a hockey stick from Daljit's van and launched into a counter-attack. He struck at Major Singh and no doubt quite viciously hit him. One of the blows knocked the knife from Major Singh's hand. More rained down on him. He was struck with sufficient ferocity to knock him to the ground. Uncle intervened in an attempt to bring some peace and he tried to lead Major Singh away. The appellant, concerned for his cousin, approached the throng but Baljit and Daljit intercepted him spent some time talking to him and eventually persuaded him to get back into his cab. The learned judge added this in his summing up:—

"He (the appellant) might have been a little afraid of them, he told you, members of the jury. He might indeed."

Then followed the events which led to this conviction. The prosecution case in opening was that the appellant drove the van in a wide sweep to make its left hand turn and deliberately drove at and over the deceased. At the close of the case, the emphasis of the Crown was less on the deliberate aiming of the vehicle at the group but rather more on the allegation, still sufficient to support the charge, that, having collided with someone, the intention was formed to drive over that person and that intention must have included a further intention to cause, at the very least, really serious harm. Others in the group managed to take evasive action but Uncle, who was apparently a very large man, picturesquely—and much to the learned judge's gratification—described as "healthy," was not nimble enough to avoid being struck. The Crown's case, to which the evidence of the pathologist lent support, was that he was struck at a moment when he was facing the van because the marks on his legs were at bumper—level. It seems most likely that he fell backwards, his legs apart and between the nearside front wheel. Such was the girth of the deceased that the lorry could not immediately mount his abdomen and the Crown's case was that it needed much revving and several attempts to drive the van over the prostrate body of the deceased dragging him some 9—11 feet in the course of doing so. Whilst this was happening the crowd were shouting at the appellant to stop and were trying to push the lorry off or away from the deceased lying trapped beneath it. There was a serious dispute as to whether or not the deceased was saying in English and Punjabi that he wanted to kill whomever it was lying beneath his wheels. Eventually he did ride up and over the body causing terrible injury, a complete separation of the pelvic bones and the spinal column and massive internal injuries from which the deceased died that night. The appellant then drove from the car park and, although the evidence was not entirely clear on the point, it seemed likely that he stopped at some stage near the exit to allow Major Singh to climb aboard. He was pursued by Lalli and he was later arrested.

The appellant gave evidence. He said he knew that Major Singh intended to speak to the Athwals about the tyre slashing incident but he did not know that he had a knife with him. He went to the scene when he saw Major Singh on the floor being struck with a hockey stick. He said that the man wielding the stick had a pony tail and he latter named him as Daljo. He said that he asked them to stop the attack but one of the group then threatened him. He said the man with the hockey stick came towards him and he retreated to van. His plan was to get away. He did not drive "straight" because "you can't turn a van like this into a right angle." He said he said he drove away a normal speed. The man with the hockey stick was still after him and the judge gave this account of the events to the jury:—

"Then he described how he came to the driver's door—that is the man with the hockey stick—got the door open and started attacking through the door, hitting more than once, and I remind you now that subsequently on examination the defendant was found to have injuries which have been described to you, including a cut to the left side of the top of the head, injuries to the right arm and the right leg and knee. True it is that he does not appear to have mentioned those when first seen by a doctor, but he did, I think, the following day, and he attributes those injuries to this attack upon with the hockey stick while he was in the cab of the car. The Crown say:- "Well, however you got those injuries it wasn't on that occasion". No other witness speaks of this attack through the cab door but bear in mind that not all the witnesses, and in particular Mr Goaman might well not have been in a position to see any such attack, the van body itself shielding the attacker from view. He says he was hit 5 or 6 times and he was going forward at the time. He hadn't realised that he had hit anybody….There was shouting which he heard as "Stop him, stop him, stop him"…He does not remember anyone banging on the van and trying to push it back. "I just wanted to get away from the man with the hockey stick, and I have no memory", he said, "of it being difficult to move the van."

At the conclusion of the evidence, the learned judge wisely invited counsel to assist him as to how he should sum up for the jury. Mr Gray did not appear for the defendant in the court below but he was represented by leading counsel of considerable experience and of high reputation. Mr Hamilton Q.C. appeared for the Crown here and the court below. The following exchanges took place:—

"Mr Justice Mantell (addressing counsel for the accused): I can only ask you to assist and it is a matter for you whether are prepared to do so or not, but I mentioned as a possible matter for summing up provocation but I do not think it arises in this case having heard how the defence has been run so far. Do you?

Counsel: My Lord, no. There is no suggestion of loss of control in that sense.

Mr Justice Mantell: No. Of course when I mentioned the word before I was not aware of the way the evidence would come.

Counsel: My Lord, I agree.

Mr Justice Mantell: Necessity, as a branch of self defence, it rather appears to me, ought to be summed up.

Counsel: Yes.

…

Mr Justice Mantell: Thank you very much. Mr Hamilton?

Mr Hamilton: I agree with my Lord and really have nothing to add but since there is a little time available, I doubt whether this is really motor manslaughter at all.

Mr Justice Mantell: The way you have put it, it is a quite deliberate running over of somebody.

Mr Hamilton: Quite deliberate running over. That is our case, that has been our case from the start, and remains it.

Mr Justice Mantell: So the only question would be intent.

Mr Hamilton: Intent.

Mr Justice Mantell: Find the facts and intent.

Mr Hamilton: Intent.

Mr Justice Mantell: Yes. Of course, if did not know there was somebody under his wheel, then —

Mr Hamilton: Accident.

Mr Justice Mantell:—Not guilty.

Mr Hamilton: Not guilty.

Mr Justice Mantell: Of anything.

Mr Hamilton: Of anything.

Mr Justice Mantell: and if that is the way you put it and it may be the more favourable way of directing the jury, it could be that (Counsel for the accused) would agree that I should do it in that way. Certainly it has the merit of clarity.

Mr Hamilton: My Lord that was our case and it has always been our case. I do not shirk from that case. I urge your Lordship to pursue that case in your summing up.

Mr Justice Mantell: (calling on counsel for the accused)

Couns...