R v Dodson
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE WATKINS |
| Judgment Date | 12 April 1984 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1984] EWCA Crim J0412-4 |
| Docket Number | No. 3113/B/82 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
| Date | 12 April 1984 |
[1984] EWCA Crim J0412-4
Lord Justice Watkins
Mr. Justice Park
and
Mr. Justice Jupp
No. 3113/B/82
No. 3282/B/82
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
MR. M. MANSFIELD appeared on behalf of the Appellant Dodson.
MR. R. FLACH appeared on behalf of the Appellant Williams.
MR. F. MAUDE appeared on behalf of the Crown.
Although Jupp J. is not able to be here this morning, he agrees entirely with the judgment I am about to deliver.
At about 4 p.m. on 9th July 1981 three black men, said to be the appellants Dodson and Williams and a man called Downes, who has not been apprehended, entered the office of the Halifax Building Society in Kingsland High Street, North London. They approached the counter upon which was mounted a glass bandit screen. Two cashiers, Annie Malcolm and Robin Evans, were behind it. So was the branch manager Mr, Shrimplin. Williams carrying a pistol banged on the screen with it, Downes carrying a sawn-off shotgun fired it at the screen. Shattered fragments of the screen slightly injured the manager, who had operated the alarm button upon first seeing the wouldbe robbers, and Annie Malcolm. The operation of the alarm had two immediate effects. Firstly, it activated two security cameras which simultaneously began to take photographs at half-second intervals and, secondly, it caused Dodson, Williams and Downes to depart in haste.
Police were informed. The negatives were taken from the films, developed and printed into photographs from which some enlargements were made by a Mr. Steppe who had fitted the cameras and a Mr. Creer who is a photographer. The photographs and enlargements provide a graphic account of the raid being made by these men, who are plainly shown in various positions, including in respect of every one of them the position of facing directly, or almost so, one or other of the cameras. They therefore also provided the police with an invaluable aid with which to investigate what was obviously a case of attempted robbery by armed men. There was scarcely any need to ask the manager and the cashiers for their recollection (they provided them in any case) of what these men looked like, what they were carrying and what they were wearing, for the photographs revealed clearly these important facts.
Dodson , who is 27 years of age and who comes originally from Guyana, was arrested on 21st July 1981, He was interviewed, after being cautioned, by police officers upon two separate occasions. According to them, notes were taken as the interviews proceeded. Those notes were undoubtedly initialled by Dodson, At the very outset Dodson said: "Show me your evidence". He was then shown one of the enlarged photographs and told that others had been taken at the time of the raid. He accepted that the photograph really was of himself and said that shortly before the raid he had been approached in the street by three men who asked if he wanted to make some money. He was there merely to make up the numbers. He had not been previously aware of the raid or of its nature the first he knew that guns were to be used was when he was within the Building Society office itself. In the second of the two interviews he confirmed his admissions, described how all of them had got away from the scene and maintained that he did not know either of his companions before the raid took place.
Williams, who is 25 years of age and who comes originally from Jamaica, was arrested on 15th October 1981. Some officers in a car were near Kensington High Street at the time. As the car was moving along they saw Williams in company with Downes. They knew that warrants were out for the arrest of both of them. They got out of the car and approached them. Williams upon being faced with the officers told them to "Puck off", and ran away. He was chased by the officers. They got hold of him. A violent struggle took place. Another officer who was in charge of a police dog released the animal which made for Williams and bit him once or twice. The dog was attacked by Williams, but eventually he was overpowered and taken into custody.
He was interviewed. Notes were taken of that. Williams refused to sign them. He was shown one of the enlargements of the photographs and said: "I heard the photos were good but not that good". He then went on to say that the raid had been pre-planned and that it was Dodson who had rented the firearms from "a guy in a cafe". He professed to be shocked when the gun went off. He was unaware, he said, that it was loaded. He himself had been cut on the chest by flying splinters from the screen. So it was that he went to the home of his brother Carl where he bathed his cuts with Dettol. He telephoned Dodson from there and had a few drinks. Subsequently he left for Jamaica where he remained for six weeks before returning to this country.
Upon his return Williams was arrested at the airport and charged with being knowingly concerned in the fraudulent evasion of the prohibition on the importation of a class B controlled drug, namely herbal cannabis.
On 4th June 1982 Dodson and Williams stood their trial at the Central Criminal Court before Mr. Recorder Hollis and a jury. That trial lasted 12 days. At the conclusion of it Dodson was found guilty of attempted robbery and of possessing a firearm with intent. For those offences he was sentenced to 5 years' and 3 years' imprisonment respectively to run consecutively. Williams was convicted of attempted robbery, possessing a firearm with intent and an assault occasioning actual bodily harm to one of the police officers already mentioned. He was sentenced to 7 years', 3 years' and 6 months' imprisonment respectively to run consecutively, that is to say to 10 ½ years' imprisonment in all. On 7th June 1982 at the Central Criminal Court the Common Serjeant sentenced Williams for the offence of importing cannabis, to which he had pleaded guilty, to a term of 2 years' imprisonment to run consecutively to the sentences passed upon him three days previously.
The single judge gave both Dodson and Williams leave to appeal against sentence. He refused their applications for leave to appeal against conviction. That application was renewed to the full court, which gave leave to both appellants to appeal against conviction. Eveleigh L. J. in giving the short judgment said: "As there is no authority upon the point that they have raised in relation to conviction, we shall give leave to appeal. That point is whether or not the jury may be invited to compare the accused as they see them in the dock with photographs taken at the time when the offence was committed; whether they should be allowed to do that at all or in the absence of any other evidence given by a person who is familiar with the accused. There is also another point, namely, whether it is permissible to invite the jury to compare the photographs taken at the time with a photograph subsequently taken of one of the accused. We think it right to grant leave because there is no authority upon that matter."
It may be thought having regard to what appeared to be the clear confessions made by both Williams and Dodson to the police somewhat surprising that they contested the charges at the Central Criminal Court in the trial already mentioned. However, the jury at the end of it all deliberated for two days - 10 hours altogether - before convicting them by majority verdicts.
Before the Crown opened the case to the jury counsel for Williams submitted that the jury should not be allowed to see the photographs taken at the branch office of the building society. He said it would be dangerous for them to have the opportunity of doing so - highly prejudicial to the appellants and grossly unfair. In any event, he said, the photographs for evidential purposes were useless. The Recorder in the course of argument at one point made this observation: "If I accede to this application, is the situation to be that where ah attempt is made to rob the premises of a building society and cameras are in fact taking photographs of people who are, in fact, engaged upon an attempted robbery, that the jury are not to be allowed the benefit of seeing what the camera has produced?" Mr. Fernandes (then appearing for Williams) said: "I must accept that. (The Recorder): It strikes me as a startling proposition in these technical days." At the conclusion of the argument the Recorder gave this ruling:
"I have seen the photographs and I am bound to say that I reject the submission in so far as it rests upon the quality of them. I take Mr. Fernandes' point that documentary evidence always tends to impress itself more positively upon the mind of a jury, essentially upon the mind of a jury who can take the document with them, but I do not think that is a reason for excluding them, I shall attempt to counteract the possible danger that Mr. Fernandes helpfully draws my attention to as soon as the jury has seen the documents, and I shall do my best to prevent them from drawing immediate comparisons between either defendant in the dock and the photographs."
The Crown was given leave to put in the photographs. This was done. Evidence of the production of them was given by the competent witnesses Steppe and Creer. The jury were provided with copies and were thus enabled during the 12 days of the trial to compare the men in the dock with the men in the photographs and enlargements, who the Crown alleged were Dodson and Williams and, as to the third man, Downes. The jury were also provided with photographs of Williams taken by the police on 6th June 1981 and the day after his arrest on...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Tenaga Nasional Berhad v Api-Api Aquaculture Sdn Bhd
-
DPP v Maguire
...to time, namely, identifying a person in a photograph as a person he is then looking at or whom he has recently seen. R. v. DodsonWLR [1984] 1 W.L.R. 971 followed. Kajala v. NobleUNK (1982) 75 Cr. App. R. 149 considered. 3. That whilst it is unsatisfactory to require a jury to identify an a......
-
William Penn v The Queen
...in the video and stills. It was real evidence that was equally admissible as the sworn testimony or documentary evidence. R v Patrick Dodson and another [1984] 1 WLR 971 ; David Richard Blenkinsop [1995] 1 Cr. App. R 7; R v Downey [1995] 1 Cr App. R. 547 considered and applied. 3. Consis......
-
DPP v Gruchacz
...giving evidence that it was or was not, as the case may be, should be accepted as credible.’ 30 Barron J. referred to R v Dodson (1984) 79 Cr. App. R. 220, where the defence had objected to photographs from the scene being given to the jury for comparison with photographs subsequently taken......
-
Subject Index
.... . . 122R v Director of Serious Fraud Office, ex p. Smith[1993]AC 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214R vDodson [1984] 1WLR 971 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .291R v Doheny and Adams [1997] 1 Cr App R 369,CA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67, 112,197–198, 199, 204R vDoosti ......
-
Low quality images and identification; directions to the jury
...In such cases, however, the jurymay still be given an appropriate direction depending on the circumstances of the case.In RvDodson [1984] 1 WLR 971 three armed men attempted to rob a building society. The managerof the building society managed to press an alarm button which activated two ca......