R v Flower
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE,MR. JUSTICE WIDGERY |
| Judgment Date | 14 October 1965 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1965] EWCA Crim J1014-1 |
| Court | Court of Criminal Appeal |
| Docket Number | No. 28/65 No. 27/65 |
| Date | 14 October 1965 |
[1965] EWCA Crim J1014-1
The Lord Chief Justice of England (Lord Parker)
Mr. Justice Ashworth
and
Mr. Justice Widgery
No. 28/65
No. 29/65
No. 27/65
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
Royal Courts of Justice
MR. N. McKINNON, Q.C. and MR. H. HILL appeared as Counsel for the appellant RICHARD ARTHUR FLOWER.
MR. TUDOR EVANS, Q.C. and MR. C. WHITBY appeared as Counsel for the appellant FREDERICK GEORGE SIGGINS.
THE APPELLANT ERIC FLOWER did not appear and was not represented.
MR. P. WRIGHTSON, Q.C. and MR. C.J. CRESPI appeared as Counsel for the Crown.
Mr. Justice Widgery will give the Judgment of the Court.
These three appellants were convicted on the 31st December last at the Central Criminal Court after a trial lasting twenty-one days which was, itself, a retrial, the jury having disagreed on a previous occasion.
The indictment contained 15 counts. A number of these were withdrawn in the course of the trial and in the end the result of the trial, in terms of convictions and sentences, was as follows: first on count 1, all three were convicted of conspiracy to rob. Eric Flower received a sentence of twelve years, Richard Flower 10 years and Siggins ten years. On Count 4, conspiracy to take a motor vehicle without authority, again each of the three was convicted and each received a sentence of five years. On Count 5, which was a charge of robbery with aggravation on the 19th December, 1963 at Middleton in Lancashire, all three were convicted and each received a sentence of five years. On Count 6, which was another charge of robbery with aggravation, this time on the 3rd January, 1964 in Manchester, Eric Flower and Siggins were convicted and each received a sentence of five years, and Richard Flower was acquitted by direction of the learned Judge. On Count 7, another count of robbery, this time with violence, the offence having taken place on the 27th February, 1964 in Warrington, each of the three was convicted and each received a sentence of ten years. On Count 10 Eric Flower and Richard Flower were convicted of receiving a stolen motor car and each received two years imprisonment. Finally on Count 15 Siggins was convicted of driving a vehicle knowing it to have been taken without authority and he received a sentence of twelve months imprisonment. The sentences in all cases were concurrent.
Following those convictions each of the three appellants gave notice of appeal against conviction and sentence; each of the three subsequently withdrew his application for leave to appeal against sentence, and finally on the 8th July of this year Eric Flower escaped from custody in Wandsworth Frison and has not been apprehended. It is on that account that Eric Flower has not appeared or been represented in this Court.
The case was a complicated one and it is quite impossible, within the four walls of this judgment, to get any detailed picture of the overall case presented by the Prosecution. It suffices to say the Prosecution opened this matter as an extensive conspiracy between an association of professional criminals, perhaps some ten in number, to rob, principally by violence in the street, and to steal or otherwise unlawfully acquire the motor cars necessary for this kind of activity. There was a great deal of evidence, much of it small in itself, which tended to show the existence of such a conspiracy on a substantial scale, and it was the case for the Prosecution that each of these three men was not only involved throughout in conspiracy but had also taken an active part in the three robberies charged in Counts 5, 6 and 7.
So far as the association between the three men themselves is concerned, Eric Flower and Richard Flower are brothers and at all material times were living in Manchester, their houses being no more than 500 yards apart. Richard Flower and Siggins had known each other and been associated in business for a number of years prior to the events which give rise to this appeal, but there was very little evidence to associate Eric Flower directly with Siggins. In addition to the two houses which they occupied in Manchester, there was a great deal of evidence called by the Prosecution to show that a house at Upminster, 43 The Grove, Upminster, had been used at the material time by the two Flowers and by their families. A tenancy of this house had been taken in the name of Eric Mansfield but evidence, notably that of a man called Searles, was to the effect that the Flowers and their families had used this house extensively throughout the material time.
It is convenient to "begin an account of this matter by referring to the date when it really came to a head, which was the 6th June, 1964. On that day Eric Flowers was arrested in Manchester upon these charges and upon the same day a Mini Cooper disappeared from the West End of London and was seen, according to Prosecution witnesses, outside the house at Upminster, number 43 The Grove. Mr. Searles, a neighbour, spoke of having seen Richard Flower in close proximity to this car that evening and he also spoke to having heard the car back up to the garage at number 43 The Grove and he spoke to having heard noises as though metallic objects were being loaded into the car. He then spoke of the car being driven off in a hurry. Shortly after that this same car, which was admittedly driven at this time by Siggins, attracted the notice of police officers and as it failed to stop the officers gave chase. There followed a chase extending over a number of miles in which objects, cunningly designed to puncture the tyres of following cars, were said to be thrown out of the fleeing Mini car. However, the time did come when the police car cornered the Mini car in a courtyard of a public house but when the police officers got out of their car Siggins, using his skill as a driver, backed or turned the Mini car and it got away again. It was, however, found later on with no passengers in it and inside the police discovered what can perhaps be fairly described as a positive armoury of tools and equipment associated with the kind of crime with which these men were charged. There were found in this Mini car blank number plates and numbers capable of being fitted to motor car number plates. There were found other examples of the spiked blocks. There were found also iron bars, knives, balaclava helmets of various kinds and of special significance, surgical masks of the kind used by surgeons when conducting operations. These various articles played a considerable part in this case and it is for that reason that I refer to the incidents of the 6th June first. Siggins, as I sexy, was admittedly the driver of the Mini car on this occasion and it was the case for the Prosecation that Richard Flower was his passenger. This was disputed at the trial but there was clear evidence upon which the jury could find that Richard was the passenger, and it seems clear that they so found.
With that introduction it is convenient next to turn to the three substantive charges of robbery in Counts 5, 6 and 7. There is a submission in regard to each of these counts made on behalf of Richard Flower and Siggins and also taken by the absent Eric Flower in his Notice of Appeal, that there was in each case and in respect of each accused, insufficient evidence to go to the jury upon which they might be convicted. The Prosecution evidence on Count 5 was that at about 10.30 in the morning of the 19th September at Middleton in Lancashire the Manager and Deputy Manager of the Labour Exchange were carrying two bags of cash, the total amount being nearly £2,000, in a locked Humber Hawk car. They spoke to having been intercepted when in Market Street by a Jaguar which got in front of them and reversed back on to their car, when at the same time a Mini car come up from behind and blocked any further movement of the Humber. They spoke to three or four men wearing balaclava helmets getting out of the Jaguar, to the windows of the Humber being smashed, the bags being grabbed and the men making off in the Jaguar. None of those present at the scene of the robbery was able to identify any of the three or four men involved. However, the balaclava helmets, according to the evidence, bore a marked resemblance to some of the balaclava helmets which were found in the Mini car on the 6th June. Furthermore, so far as Siggins is concerned, there was evidence given by a witness called Lyon who was a shopkeeper at Farnworth, some twelve miles away from the scene of the robbery, Lyon's evidence in brief amounted to this: he said at about 9 o'clock on the morning of the robbery a Jaguar and a Mini car had driven up beside his shop, that one had turned to the left and the other to the right, that a man had got out of the Jaguar and got into the Mini car whereupon the Mini car drove away leaving the Jaguar in its place. At one time it was sought to say that the man who got out of the Jaguar was Eric Flower, but Lyon's identification of that man was unsatisfactory. On I think three occasions altogether, he identified three different people as having been the man who had left the Jaguar and his was the principal evidence by which it was sought to associate Eric Flower with this incident. Later in the day Lyon was shown the Mini car which had in fact been used in the robbery and he expressed the view that it was, at any rate, as seen from the back, of the same colour and similar in appearance to the Mini car into which the man had gone at 9 o'clock that morning.
Siggins came on the scene at 12 o'clock. It so happens the Jaguar which had been left in the vicinity of Mr. Lyon's shop was Siggins' own...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R v Chionye
... ... As submitted by Mr. Leonard, we propose to receive the evidence as fresh evidence under section 23 of the 1968 Act ... 24 In R. v. Flower (1966) 50 Cr.App.R. 22, at page 30, Widgery J., giving the judgment of the court, said: ... 25 "Having heard the fresh evidence and considered the reliability of the witness, this court may take one of three views "with regard to it. If satisfied that the fresh evidence is true and ... ...
-
R v Carter
...is resisted by the Crown. 9 The question now is as to what course this Court should take. The practice of the Court, was stated in Flower and others 50 Cr App R 22. It was held that where an appellant had escaped from custody the practice was to adjourn the appeal, or to dismiss it accordin......
-
R v Gooch
...confiscated, while it remained subject to appeal. In considering what action it should take the court had been referred toR v FlowerELR ([1966] 1 QB 146), a case in which there were three appellants, one of whom, Eric Flower, had absconded from prison. Despite the fact that Eric Flower was ......
- Theow Say Kow @ Teoh Kiang Seng, Henry v Graceful Frontier Sdn Bhd &Ors and Other Appeals