R v French (Edward Charles)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE |
| Judgment Date | 09 February 1982 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1982] EWCA Crim J0209-1 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
| Docket Number | No. 656/C/81 |
| Date | 09 February 1982 |
[1982] EWCA Crim J0209-1
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
The Lord Chief Justice of England (Lord Lane)
Mr. Justice Talbot
and
Mr. Justice McCowan
No. 656/C/81
MR. J. BLACK appeared on behalf of the Appellant.
MR. V.B.A. TEMPLE appeared on behalf of the Crown.
On 19th January last year at the Central Criminal Court before Judge Lewisohn, this appellant, Edward Charles French, pleaded guilty to four counts of an indictment: count 2 robbery, counts 3 and 4 each common assault (that was not the original charge but that was the plea which was accepted by the prosecution) and count 5 possessing a firearm with intent to commit an indictable offence. On the charge of robbery he was sentenced to five years' imprisonment, on the two common assault charges to eighteen months' imprisonment on each to run concurrently, and on the firearms charge to three years' imprisonment consecutive, that is eight years' imprisonment in all.
So far as the common assault charges are concerned, those sentences were illegal. The maximum sentence for common assault is twelve months' imprisonment. The sentences of eighteen months were improper. The Judge was misled by the information he had at the trial. Consequently, so far as those counts are concerned, we quash the sentences of eighteen months' imprisonment and substitute sentences of twelve months' imprisonment in each case. Since they were ordered to run concurrently, that makes no difference to the totality of the sentence.
This case was an armed robbery, which was executed by a number of people. The others involved were a man called Burgess, who pleaded guilty to the robbery and was sentenced to four years' imprisonment; Gaines, who pleaded guilty to robbery and common assault; he was sentenced to five years' imprisonment for the robbery and to eighteen months' imprisonment on the common assaults to run concurrently, making five years in all; and a man called Armano Bechizza, who pleaded guilty to all six counts in the indictment, and he was sentenced to three months' imprisonment for taking a motor vehicle without authority, to six years' imprisonment concurrent for the robbery, to eighteen months' imprisonment on the common assault charges concurrently and to three years' imprisonment consecutive for possessing a firearm, making a total of nine years' imprisonment. There was a woman called Polly Trickett, who pleaded not guilty to robbery and not guilty to conspiracy to commit theft. She was found not guilty by order of the Court.
Edward French now appeals against sentence after refusal by the single Judge, but leave was given by the full Court for these matters to be aired before us for reasons which will appear in a moment.
The facts of the case were these. The victim of the robbery was an Indian gentleman called Mr. Umar. He was a carpet merchant in a state of reasonable affluence. He also owned an Indian restaurant. Unhappily for him he associated with Polly Trickett, who was a prostitute. He had met her through the services of what is sometimes euphemistically called an Escort Agency, and he apparently became fond of her. He entertained her lavishly. He took her to his home and it was apparent to her that he kept a large sum of ready cash in one of the drawers in his bedroom.
Polly Trickett knew Bechizza, who was a taxi driver. She told him about Mr. Umar and his wealth and where he lived. Bechizza recruited Burgess and Gaines and one of them it seems recruited French, the appellant, for the purpose of robbing Mr. Umar. Bechizza armed himself with a hammer and also a .22 starting pistol loaded with blanks. At some stage in the proceedings — possibly a later stage altogether — this appellant was armed with a serviceable .38 revolver loaded with six rounds and also a cosh.
The plan was to go to Mr. Umar's flat, one of them pretending to be a postman with a registered parcel. The idea was to get the victim, Mr. Umar, to open the flat door, whereupon they would go in, break open the drawer where the money was kept with the hammer steal the money and run away.
There was a series of misfortunes. Unhappily for them, Polly Trickett had given them the wrong number of the flat. They went to No. 97 instead of 95. That caused considerable confusion and despondency to the owner of the wrong flat. Mr. Umar at that time happened to be at his front door and, to cut a long story short, all were bundled up and assaulted, as was a porter of the flats, who came on the scene. Hence the common assault charges. The men made away with a number of items, a little cash and a watch belonging to Mr. Umar, only to be met on the stairs by the police coming up the stairs. So they were caught.
One of the serious features, so far as this man was concerned, was the fact that he had threatened the owner of the other flat to get inside his flat or he, French, would blow his head off, using the usual expletives. When the police arrived on the scene once again this man brandished his revolver at the police. He was disarmed of his revolver and disarmed of his cosh. He was found in possession of the money which had been taken from Mr. Umar. Gaines was in possession of the Omega watch of Mr. Umar, covered with Mr. Umar's blood. Burgess, who was waiting in the taxi in which they had gone to the scene, ready to drive them away, was arrested in the taxi cab outside.
This man is 31 years of age. He was living with his wife and two children. One of the remarkable features of the case is that he has no previous custodial or immediate custodial sentence recorded against him, His last conviction was in 1973, for an assault on the police, for which he was sentenced to three months' imprisonment suspended. Apart from that there were two earlier minor items of theft. It is also true that he came on the scene at a late stage. He was probably recruited on the day before these events at the very earliest.
Now it is submitted by Mr. Black, in a cogent and succinct address, that the sentence imposed upon him was too long. First of all it was suggested in the notice of appeal that it is wrong in principle to impose consecutive sentences when there are two counts in the indictment, one of robbery and the other of possessing a firearm with intent to commit an indictable offence. It is said that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R v Shaka Kent
...entitled to do so. There is a long line of authority stemming from a judgment of the former Lord Chief Justice, Lord Lane, in the case of R v French (1982) 4 Cr App R(S) 57 and illustrated by the subsequent decision of R v Bottomley (1985) 7 Cr App R(S) 355 which make it crystal clear that ......
-
R v Avis and Others
...Act 1972, and from 14 years' to life by the Criminal Justice Act 1988. Offences against the subsection are triable on indictment only. In R v French (1982) 75 Cr App R 1 the defendant had pleaded guilty to robbery, for which he had been sentenced to 5 years' imprisonment, and to an offence......
-
R and Nicholas Barrington Robert SHERRIFF and Ezekiel Benjamin Sylvester FRANCIS and Louis James RICHARDS and Leroy WILLIAMS and Bilal Kumar MULJI and Mark NEAL
...to another offence, but is disputed, it is generally appropriate to add a firearms count to the indictment, relying on R v. French (1982) 75 Cr App R 1 and R v. Guy (1991) 93 Cr App R 108. The evidence deriving from Tina Allured relating to Neal's use of a firearm was disputed, as the Crown......
-
R v Flamson (Lee Andrew)
... ... In the latter connection he refers to the decisions in French (1982) 4 Cr.App.R (S) 57 and Eubank decided in this court presided over by the Lord Chief ... ...