R v Fulling
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE |
| Judgment Date | 17 February 1987 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1987] EWCA Crim J0217-1 |
| Docket Number | No. 5250/D/86 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
| Date | 17 February 1987 |
[1987] EWCA Crim J0217-1
The Lord Chief Justice of England (Lord Lane)
Mr. Justice Taylor
and
Mr. Justice Henry
No. 5250/D/86
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
MR. N. DAVEY appeared on behalf of the Appellant.
MR. S. LAWLER appeared on behalf of the Crown.
On 6th August 1986 in the Crown Court at Leeds before Judge Hurwitz and a jury, this appellant was convicted by a majority verdict of ten to two of obtaining property by deception. She faced a further similar count, the trial of which was adjourned. No sentence has yet been passed.
She appeals against conviction by leave of the single Judge.
The facts which gave rise to the charge were these. In September 1981 the appellant claimed some £5,665 from her insurers in respect of what she claimed was a burglary at her flat in Leeds. The insurance company in July 1982 paid her £5,212 in settlement of the claim.
Many months later a man called Turnpenny, an acknowledged criminal, gave to the police a mass of information about the activities of other criminals, which resulted in a large number of people being arrested, among them being this appellant. Turnpenny gave evidence that the appellant had told him that her "burglary" was bogus; that a man called Maddon had committed it; that she knew the whereabouts of the stolen property. She gave him to understand that the idea of the bogus burglary had been initiated by one Drewery, with whom the appellant had been living and with whom she was infatuated. Turnpenny conceded that he had good reasons for wishing to harm Drewery.
As a result of this information the appellant was arrested in the early hours of Friday 12th July 1985. Drewery was arrested at the same time. She was interviewed twice on that day, but exercised her right to say nothing despite persistent questioning by the police. She was interviewed again on the following day, Saturday. The interview was split into two, with a break in between, according to the police of 50 minutes, according to her of about 5 or 10 minutes.
The police witnesses described how, after initially refusing to answer questions, her attitude started to change. One of the officers, Detective Sergeant Beech, said: "You've obviously got a lot on your mind, are you finding it difficult?" "Yes." "Would I be right in saying that you want to talk about this but every bone in your body is telling you you shouldn't?" "Something like that" was the reply. Then came the break already described.
When the interview was resumed, in answer to questions from the officer she admitted a number of offences. Amongst them was the setting up of the bogus burglary: "I approached a man in a pub because I was short of money and asked him if he would break in for me." She admitted obtaining the money from her insurers. She said that Bhe had spent some of it on a holiday for herself and Drewery. She expressed her sorrow at having committed the offences and said she felt relieved that she had confessed. She sought, it should be added, to exculpate Drewery.
Thus there were two legs to the prosecution case: Turnpenny's evidence and the police account of her confession. The only corroboration of the former was the latter. The prosecution concede that if the confession goes, then the appeal should be allowed. They would not seek to rely on Turnpenny's uncorroborated evidence.
The only issue in the appeal is whether or not the confession was properly admitted.
A submission was made to the learned Judge that the confession should be ruled inadmissible by virtue of the provisions of section 76 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which provides as follows:
"(1) In any proceedings a confession made by an accused person may be given in evidence against him in so far as it is relevant to any matter in issue in the proceedings and is not excluded by the court in pursuance of this section.
"(2) If, in any proceedings where the prosecution proposes to give in evidence a confession made by an accused person, it is represented to the court that the confession was or may have been obtained - (a) by oppression of the person who made it; or (b)in consequence of anything said or done which was likely, in the circumstances existing at the time, to render unreliable any confession which might be made by him in consequence thereof, the court shall not allow the confession to be given in evidence against him except in so far as the prosecution proves to the court beyond reasonable doubt that the confession (notwithstanding that it may be true) was not obtained as aforesaid."
It was represented to the learned Judge that the confession was or might have been obtained by oppression of the appellant within the meaning of subsection (2)(a).
The appellant's evidence on the voir dire as to her reason for making the confession was this. After the break in the final interview one of the police officers, Detective Constable Holliday, told her that Drewery, her lover, had been having for the last three years or so an affair with a woman called Christine Judge. Now Christine Judge was one of the many people who had been arrested as a result of Turnpenny's disclosures. She was in the next cell to the appellant and, said the appellant, Detective Constable Holliday told her so. These revelations, said the appellant, so distressed her that she "just couldn't stand being in the cells any longer". Then later in her evidence she said this: "As soon as the matter about Christine came out, Detective Constable Holliday left the room and my head was swimming. I felt numb and after a while I said to Detective Sergeant Beech, 'Is it true?' and he said 'Ronnie shouldn't have said that, he gets a bit carried away. Look Ruth, why don't you make a statement?'"
She said that she knew Drewery had in 1982 had an affair with a woman called Christine. She had before the interview noticed that the cell next door to hers had the name Christine Judge on its door, but said she did not realise that this was the same Christine until the police told her. After she had made her confession she had shouted to Christine to ask her if what the police had told her was true. Up to that point she said she was not particularly expressing her distress, but once she had spoken to Christine she just cried and cried. Later in cross-examination she said, "I agreed to a statement being taken, it was the only way I was going to be released from the cells", but she conceded that she was not suggesting that she had been offered bail in return for a statement.
The officers denied that they had made to her any such revelation as she suggested.
The basis of the submission to the Judge was that the information given to her by the police about Christine amounted to oppression, and that the confession was, or might have been, obtained thereby, and that the prosecution had failed to discharge the burden of proving beyond reasonable doubt...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Public Prosecutor v Dato' Seri Anwar bin Ibrahim
-
R v Smith (Wallace)
... ... 1406A–C , E–F , H–1407A ) ... Dictum of Lord Lane C.J. in Reg. v. Fulling [ 1987 ] Q.B. 426 , 432, C.A. applied ... (3) Allowing the appeal, that the judge had wrongly exercised his discretion under section 78(1) of the Act of 1984 to allow the evidence of the interview to be adduced at the trial since he had taken a mistaken view of the subject matter of legal ... ...
- Chan Choon Keong and Others; PP
- Hasibullah bin Mohd Ghazali v PP
-
Subject Index
...112, 118R v Forbes [2001] 1 Cr App R 430, HL ............................................... 112, 217R v Fulling [1987] 2 WLR 923 ......... 237R v Goldenberg (1988) 88 Cr App R 285........................................... 172, 173R v H and C [2004] UKHL 3..... 179–185,201–202, 255R v Hame......
-
Police powers in England and Wales: the courts and the changes of pace
...The Court was anxious to ensure that the right of access to a solicitor could 80 [1988] 2 All E.R. 135. 81 [1988] 1 All E.R. 435. 82 [1987] 2 All E.R. 65 . 83 Supra, n. 77. 84 [1988] 2 All E.R. at 140-142. not be precipitated by a prisoner detained on suspicion for a major offence by confes......
-
The courts and the interpretation of a civil code in a mixed legal system: Saint Lucia revisited
...112 Ibid., pp. 129, 129-130. 160-161. 113 Per Lord Moulton in Despatie v. Tremblay [1921] A.C. 702 at p.709. 114 R. v. Fulling [1987] 2 W.L.R. 923 at p.928B. Vagliano principles to the interpretation of the Civil Code of Quebec without hint of any differences between common law "codifying A......
-
Bad Character Evidence and Non-Party Witnesses under the Criminal Justice Act 2003
...character evidencehas significant weight are identified in s. 100(3): nature, gravity, frequency, date, etc.10 [2001] 1 WLR 789, HL.11 [1987] 2 WLR 923. 238 THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EVIDENCE & PROOFBAD CHARACTER EVIDENCE AND NON-PARTY WITNESSESAlthough this sub-section is only directly ......