R v Fawcett

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
JudgeLORD JUSTICE LAWTON
Judgment Date09 May 1983
Judgment citation (vLex)[1983] EWCA Crim J0509-1
CourtCourt of Appeal (Criminal Division)
Docket NumberNo. 3895/C2/82 No. 4192/C2/82
Date09 May 1983
Regina
and
Kenneth John Fawcett
Simon Gordon Fawcett
and
Andrew Guy Chatterton

[1983] EWCA Crim J0509-1

Before:

Lord Justice Lawton

and

Mr. Justice Stocker

No. 3895/C2/82

No. 3896/C2/82

No. 4192/C2/82

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

CRIMINAL DIVISION

Royal Courts of Justice

MR. P. ROBERTSHAW appeared on behalf of the Appellants.

1

(As approved by the Judge)

LORD JUSTICE LAWTON
2

On 14th June, 1982 in the Crown Court at Bradford these Appellants, Simon Gordon Fawcett, Kenneth John Fawcett and Andrew Guy Chatterton, pleaded guilty to an indictment and were sentenced as follows: On Count 1, Chatterton was sentenced to 1 month's imprisonment for the unlawful possession of cannabis; on Count 2, he was sentenced to 2 years' imprisonment concurrent for robbery, and on Count 5, all of them were sentenced to 9 months' imprisonment for burglary; on Count 4, they were all sentenced to 2 years' imprisonment for robbery, the sentences to run consecutive to the other sentences, and on Count 5, Kenneth John Fawcett was sentenced to 3 months' imprisonment, concurrent, for handling stolen goods. The consequence of those sentences was that Simon Fawcett and Kenneth Fawcett both had to serve 2 years 9 months' imprisonment, and Chatterton had to serve a total of 4 years 9 months' imprisonment. They now appeal against their sentences by leave of the single judge.

3

This case is a startling example of the problems which arise when a number of accused, all charged with the same type of offences arising out of one or more series of incidents when they were acting together, are tried on different occasions by different judges. This is such a startling example of what happens that we direct that a copy of this judgment be sent to the presiding judge of the north eastern circuit and to the circuit administrator of that circuit. We are alive to the difficulties which arise when in these sort of circumstances a number of men plead guilty and usually ask for their cases to be dealt with at once and one or more pleads not guilty and the trial has to be put back to a later date. This court has said on a number of occasions in the recent past that judges must set their hearts against agreeing to deal with those who plead guilty at a different time from those who plead not guilty. Unless there are most unusual circumstances, those who are charged together should be dealt with together and if that course is taken the sort of situation which has arisen here would not arise.

4

I deal, first of all, with the facts of this case. So far as Count 1 is concerned, Chatterton was stopped and found to be in possession of a small amount of cannabis. Nothing more need be said about that. So far as Counts 2 and 5 are concerned, the position was that on 5th March, 1982, in Bradford, a 54 year old credit agent had collected money from Kenneth Fawcett's wife but when he was returning from her house to his car, along a narrow alleyway, he was confronted by Chatterton and a man called Hardwick, who covered their faces with their woollen hats. In his haste to escape he fell. The two men came up to him. The victim handed them his wallet containing £145. They left him. They dropped the wallet but later recovered it. The victim was shocked but uninjured apart from a graze to his knee caused by his fall. Three pounds was given to Kenneth Fawcett by the assailants: that is the subject matter of Count 5 of the indictment, which charges Kenneth Fawcett alone. When interviewed by the police, Kenneth Fawcett said that he had previously referred to the victim when speaking to Hardwick about mugging but he had not been involved in the robbery.

5

Counts 3 and 4 relate to two offences which were committed on 2nd April, 1982. On that date, Chatterton and Hardwick planned to break into a jeweller's premises located below a solicitor's office in North Parade, Bradford. They later met the Fawcett brothers in a public house to discuss the plan but it was unacceptable to the Fawcetts. It was suggested by Kenneth Fawcett that they should rob a petrol station and this was carried out.

6

At about 8.45 p.m. a petrol attendant saw three men in a car in the station forecourt peering into the office where he was working. Being suspicious, he transferred money from the till into a safe in the floor. Some time after 9 p.m. he went into the forecourt and saw someone standing at the back of the station. He returned to the office. Two men rushed in - one was Kenneth Fawcett wearing a mask and carrying a small hammer and the other was Hardwick, whom the attendant recognised as one of the men in the car. Hardwick pushed the attendant to the floor and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
99 cases
  • R v Trevor Alan Young
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
    • 4 Diciembre 2003
    ...could not have been the subject of proper complaint. However, the test which we have to apply is that set out by Lawton LJ in R v Fawcett 5 Cr.App.R.(S) 158 namely, "would right thinking members of the public, with full knowledge of the relevant facts and circumstances, learning of this sen......
  • R v Mitchell (Gordon)
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
    • 20 Septiembre 2002
    ...of the appellant. This view was not disputed by counsel who appeared for the appellant today. Applying the well-known principles set out in Fawcett (1983) 5 Cr.App.R (S) 158 which is to ask where disparity of sentence is alleged, whether right-thinking members of the public with full knowle......
  • Webster v R
    • Cayman Islands
    • Court of Appeal (Cayman Islands)
    • 27 Noviembre 2013
    ......Mullings. There is nothing to indicate that his culpability in the venture was any less than that of Mr. Webster and, as I have indicated, there is a certain amount to suggest that, in fact, his culpability was rather greater. What then justifies the disparity? 11 In R. v. Fawcett (1), the Court of Appeal of England and Wales emphasized that where an appellant has received a sentence which is not excessive for his offence, but a co-defendant whose culpability is not significantly different has received a less severe sentence which is unduly lenient, the Court of Appeal may ......
  • R v Frederic Brian Donovan
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
    • 5 Noviembre 2013
    ...excessive. This was an offence which fell fairly and squarely within category 1. In accordance with the principles established in R v Fawcett [1983] 5 Cr App R (S) 158, this court will only reduce a sentence on grounds of disparity where right thinking members of the public consider that so......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT