R v Edwards
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE ROBERT GOFF |
| Judgment Date | 28 February 1983 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1983] EWCA Crim J0228-2 |
| Docket Number | No. 2748/A/82 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
| Date | 28 February 1983 |
[1983] EWCA Crim J0228-2
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Lord Justice Robert Goff
Mr. Justice Cantley
and
Mr. Justice Farquharson
No. 2748/A/82
MR. C. HORDERN Q.C. and MR. R. BENSON appeared as Counsel on behalf of the Appellant.
MR. DRAYCOTT Q.C. and MR. R. LATHAM appeared as Counsel on behalf of the Crown.
(The Appellant was not present. Mr. Hordern agreed that the judgment be given in his absence)
(As approved by the Judge)
On 27th May, 1982, in the Crown Court at Reading before his Honour Judge Blomefield and a jury, the appellant was convicted of rape and sentenced to 30 months' imprisonment. At the trial he was represented under a legal aid order by solicitors and junior and leading counsel. He now appeals against conviction by leave of the Single Judge. His sole ground of appeal is that the learned judge, although he directed the jury on the burden of proof, omitted to direct them on the standard of proof.
In broad outline the facts of the matter are as follows. The appellant and the complainant were known to each other. On 25th August, 1981 both were in the Multiracial Centre at High Wycombe, the girl having gone there after leaving work at 4.30 p.m. Later in the evening she decided to go out and buy some chips. The appellant offered to drive her to the chip shop in his car; she accepted and he drove her there, and then drove her back to the club. He parked his car in a car-park not belonging to the club and they talked for a little while. He tried to kiss her, but she refused and he apologised. She said that she had to catch a bus home, but he agreed to take her home in his car. After collecting her handbag from the club, where she had left it, she returned to the car and they drove off together. As they neared her home he turned off the road into a yard where there are a number of lock-up garages. They talked, and then he moved across the passenger seat where she was sitting. He put the seat into the reclined position. Then he got on top of her. He produced a knife which he held in front of her face. He then removed her trousers and had intercourse with her. When he had finished she got out of the car and pulled up her trousers. An independent witness was in the car-park. She went up to him. His evidence was that she was crying badly and appeared distressed. He took her home. Shortly afterwards she made a complaint to her sister on the telephone and again when she saw her.
In due course the appellant was arrested. When arrested he indicated the wrong car. He also threw away a knife because he did not want to get caught with it. The evidence of the police officers was that when questioned he admitted in terms having raped the complainant. He subsequently made two statements under caution. Each was headed with a caution signed by him: each was subscribed and signed by him in the usual form in his own handwriting: each contained corrections initialled by him. Both statements amounted to confessions of rape, though the second statement was slightly more favourable to himself than the first. When he was in custody on remand he wrote a letter to the girl. It was not disputed that the writing of this letter by him was entirely voluntary; and the terms of the letter were entirely consistent with the appellant having raped the girl, and entirely inconsistent with the girl having made a false accusation against him.
At the trial the appellant admitted that he had had intercourse with the complainant, and admitted that he had displayed the knife to the girl in front of her face when lying on top of her. His case was that, although she initially said "No", she had been entirely co-operative. As to the police interviews, the contents of the statements signed by him under caution were untrue, either because the police foisted on him things that he did not say or because they went on at him until he admitted the offence to get a bit of peace and it did not seem to be any good denying the offence, which he said he had been doing throughout.
In his summing-up, which the learned judge began in the afternoon and so did not complete until the following morning, he referred at once in the normal way to the burden of proof resting on the prosecution. But he failed, obviously due to an oversight (the kind of oversight that can perhaps afflict only a very experienced judge), to inform the jury of the standard of proof. This oversight was not noticed by counsel for the prosecution. It was however observed by counsel for the defence That evening they considered what they should do. They decided, after consulting Archbold, that they had no duty to draw the matter to the attention of the court, and that their only duty was to do what they considered best in the interests of their client. On that basis they decided to say nothing. On the following day, therefore, the summing-up continued. The learned judge, as counsel for the defence carefully observed, still said nothing about the standard of proof, obviously under the misapprehension that he had dealt with the matter as usual at the beginning of the summing-up. The jury withdrew, and returned a verdict of guilty. After the trial was over, counsel for the defence drew the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
DPP v O'Carroll
...Prosecutions) v. Redmond [2001] 3 I.R. 390. R. v. Cocks (1976) 63 Cr. App. R. 79. R. v. Curtin [1996] Crim. L. R. 831. R. v. Edwards (1983) 77 Cr. App. R. 5. Criminal law - Duty of counsel - Charge of trial judge to jury - Charge erroneous in manner favourable to accused - Whether onus on d......
-
R v L
...example, if the judge found that the child or children in question had been lying, following the well known line of authorities of which R v Edwards [1991] 93 CAR 48 and R v Williams and Smith [1995] 1 CAR 74 were illustrations, that finding might form admissible material at the hearing of ......
-
O'Brien v Chief Constable of South Wales Police
...against him by police witnesses is untruthful. The test of admissibility in such a case received consideration by the Court of Appeal in R v Edwards [1991] 1 WLR 207. 35 In Edwards the appellant had been convicted of robbery while in possession of a firearm and sentenced to 14 years impriso......
-
Sheldrake v DPP
... ... It was clearly established that the burden of proving such ground of exoneration, on a balance of probabilities, lay on him: R v Edwards [1975] QB 27 ; R v Hunt (Richard) [1987] AC 352 ... When courts of summary jurisdiction in recognisably modern form were established in 1848, this rule of practice was extended to them and remains the law: see section 14 of the Summary Jurisdiction Act 1848; section 39(2) of the Summary ... ...