R v Gerrard Francis Luttrell ; R v Dawson and Hamburger
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | The Vice President |
| Judgment Date | 28 May 2004 |
| Neutral Citation | [2004] EWCA Crim 1344 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
| Docket Number | Case No: 200301056 C2 200301949 C2 200301957 C2 200302112 C2 200302141 C2 200304052 C2 200204925 C2 200205307 C2 |
| Date | 28 May 2004 |
[2004] EWCA Crim 1344
The Vice President of the Court of Appeal Criminal Division
(The Right Honourable Lord Justice Rose)
Mr Justice Andrew Smith
Mr Justice Fulford
Case No: 200301056 C2
200301899 C2
200301949 C2
200301957 C2
200302112 C2
200302141 C2
200304052 C2
200204925 C2
200205307 C2
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand,
London, WC2A 2LL
Mr G Forlin & Mr M Lawson appeared on behalf of Luttrell
Mr G Cockings appeared on behalf of Jheeta
Mr A Turton appeared on behalf of Beagley(Aka Richardson)
Mr J N Davies appeared on behalf of Keshwala
Mr P Katz QC & Mr M Khamisa appeared on behalf of Sahota
Mr J Guthrie QC appeared on behalf of Dawson
Mr P Griffiths QC appeared on behalf of Hamberger
Mr S C Russell-Flint QC & Miss H Norton & Miss C Laing appeared on behalf of the Crown
These cases raise points of practical importance in relation to lip-reading evidence. Luttrell, Dawson and Hamberger all appeal, with leave of the single judge, against the ruling of their trial judges that such evidence should be admitted. Questions arise as to how a judge should consider such evidence and as to the appropriate directions to the jury if it is admitted. All members of the constitution have contributed substantially to this judgment.
Luttrell was tried, with a number of other defendants, at Reading Crown Court before His Honour Judge Playford QC. On 10 th September 2002, before the jury was sworn, Dhaliwal and Sahota changed their pleas to guilty to a conspiracy to handle stolen goods on count 3. On 8 th January 2003, following a seventy-day trial, Luttrell, Beagley, Jheeta, Keshwala and Shergil were convicted on the same count. On 27 th February 2003 Luttrell was sentenced to 3 1/2 years imprisonment, Beagley to 7 years, Jheeta to 7 years, Keshwala to 5 years 9 months, Shergil to 5 years 9 months, Dhaliwal to 5 years 3 months and Sahota to 10 years. Subsequently, confiscation orders were made against Sahota in a sum in excess of £700,000, with 5 years consecutively in default of payment, against Beagley in the sum of £27,000 with 15 months consecutive and against Keshwala in a small sum with 7 months consecutive. No orders were made in the confiscation proceedings against Jheeta, Shergil and Dhaliwal and the confiscation hearing against Luttrell was adjourned until after his appeal to this court. Shergil was deprived of his interest in a Toyota motorcar. Co-accused called Sandal and Acar, who pleaded guilty to count 3 before the jury was sworn, were each sentenced to 4 years and 9 months imprisonment and confiscation orders were made against them. Farry who had pleaded guilty in December 2001 was sentenced to 3 1/2 years imprisonment. Five other co-accused were either acquitted by the jury or found not guilty on the judge's direction. Beagley renews his application for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence, following refusal by the single judge. Sahota, Jheeta, Keshwala, Shergil and Dhaliwal all renew their applications for leave to appeal against sentence following refusal by the single judge, necessary extensions of time having been granted by the Registrar to Sahota and Shergil.
In outline, the circumstances were that, between the beginning of December 2000 and late June 2001, at various places in the United Kingdom, 9 thefts of high value computer and electrical equipment took place by way of armed robbery, burglary or theft from lorries in transit or whilst being stored. The value of the goods stolen was £6-£7 million. The goods were rapidly disposed of and it was said that the conspirators were close to those who committed the primary offences. It was the Crown case that the principal organisers of the disposal were Sahota and Beagley, directing operations behind others in more exposed positions lower down the chain. Sandal, Acar and Farry played major roles acting on the directions of Beagley and/or Sahota. Dhaliwal and Jheeta performed specific tasks, particularly for Sahota whose lieutenants they were. Shergil was the director of a courier company Vanguard Logistics of Slough. Keshwala assisted others higher up: there was no evidence of wealth in his case and he was regarded by several of his co-accused as being "a bit dim". Luttrell joined in the conspiracy when he was offered goods and sold them on to innocent purchasers. The warehouse used at 919 Yeovil Road Slough, from which Acar's company Silverplus traded, was central to the conspiracy. There were no company records or books of accounts, bank accounts or VAT returns. A lot of invoices passed to Silverplus from Luttrell's company DVD. Sahota occasionally, Jheeta and Dhaliwal frequently, visited the unit. Under-cover officers posed as potential buyers. They wore recording devices and there was evidence of meetings and telephone calls between mid-February and early July 2001, surveillance logs being maintained between 24 th April and 5 th July. Between 29 th May and 27 th June audio visual surveillance was carried out. There were photographs, videos and transcripts before the court.
A company called Woodbury Systems Ltd was set up and used to sell the stolen goods. It was registered for VAT purposes on 7 th April 2000 but its office was a boarded-up flat in Tulse Hill. Its invoices named 2 telephone numbers, calls to which were diverted to a mobile telephone. In December 2000 Dhaliwal, using a forged driving licence, set up an account for Woodbury Systems at Barclays in Uxbridge. There was no supporting documentation for the 7 principal deals done by Woodbury. After laptop computers had been stolen in a burglary at Reading on 4 th/ 5 th December 2000, Woodbury invoices dated 5 th to 14 th December showed the sale of 97 laptops to a company in Solihull for over £70,000 but they were not delivered and no money was paid. According to Beagley 41 computers were supplied by Woodbury to Prima Computers and 21 other laptops, which were probably stolen, were sent out by Woodbury.
Following an armed robbery at Sunbury on Thames on 22 nd December 2000, Dhaliwal offered memory chips then stolen to a Mr Patel who paid a total of £40,000 for them. Jheeta offered electrical goods to a Mr Shakil who paid money for goods, which were never received. On 17 th May, Acar or Sandal sold 100 stolen Samsung monitors, which had come from a burglary at a lorry park in Teeside on 24 th April. In June 2001, following a robbery the previous month, £27,000 worth of Sony Discmans were invoiced by Woodbury but never delivered. On 5 th June, at Dhaliwal's request, Beagley doctored a Woodbury invoice so that it looked like a blank and faxed it to Dhaliwal: he told an accountant that some of the stuff sold was "hot" and, once it was sold, it must never come back. In July 2001, there were recovered from a trade unit in Vauxhall four boxes of memory chips stolen in May, together with Samsung monitors which Acar and Sandal had sent there in June. In mid-July 2000 Jheeta set up a Woodbury bank account at Nat West in Gerrards Cross, claiming to be an importer of computer hardware with a turnover in excess of £1 million. He also had a personal account there and, for both accounts, Jheeta gave Acar's address.
A telephone schedule before the jury showed many calls between Jheeta and Unit 919 and between Jheeta and Luttrell's company DVD. Surveillance logs recorded Jheeta's presence several times at Unit 919, between late April and late May. Sahota, Dhaliwal, Acar, Sandal, Luttrell and Keshwala were also there from time to time. There were telephone calls between Keshwala and Sandal, Keshwala and Sahota and Jheeta, Sandal and Acar. On 15 th June Keshwala, Sahota and Dhaliwal were together in a people carrier. On 23 rd June, shortly after Keshwala had gone to India, between £3 and £4 million pounds worth of Nokia mobile phones were taken in a robbery and delivered to Unit 919 some hours later. On 26 th June, Jheeta was discussing those telephones and, the following day, discussed them and a similar number of legitimate phones in telephone calls with Sandal and Acar. Jheeta said he wanted £195 per phone and, on 28 th June, they were offered to an undercover officer called Tom.
Between early February and the beginning of July, undercover police officers Paul, Tom, Alec and Neal had dealings with a number of the defendants. In February Paul met Farry and Beagley and Farry referred to his associates as having "their fingers in a lot of pies" and to an Indian guy (Sahota) who was "loaded" and very clever: he used courier companies for storage and would hit 3 or 4 lorries, loaded with £2 million worth of goods, at a time. Paul, Tom, and Alec met Farry on 28 th March, the day after £675,000 worth of French laptop computers had been stolen at Membury service station on M4. On 10 th April, Farry provided Paul with a sample of the laptops stolen on the 27 th. On 24 th April, 600 monitors were stolen from Samsung in Teeside in a burglary and, 2 days later, Farry offered these to Tom. On 12 th May £500,000 worth of Toshiba memory upgrade chips were stolen by deception in Colnbrook. Three days later, Farry and Acar discussed with Tom and Alec a new parcel which was to become available. Next day Acar gave Tom a four-page list of available property and, on the same day, officers went to Unit 919 and collected 33 monitors for which they paid £2,500. Also on the same day there was another robbery at Sony, Colnbrook, when £400,000 worth of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R v Perez
...1 Cr. App. R. 5; [2008] 2 FLR 412; [2008] Fam. Law 842; [2005] EWCA Crim 1980, dicta of Gage, L.J. followed. (12) R. v. Luttrell, [2004] 2 Cr. App. R. 31; [2004] EWCA Crim 1344, dicta of Rose, L.J. followed. (13) R. v. Parenzee, [2007] SASC 143, considered. (14) R. v. RobbUNK(1991), 93 Cr. ......
-
R v Hampton; R v Brown
...of evidence in addition to disputed eyewitness identification of a defendant require a special warning. 49 In R v Luttrell and others [2004] EWCA Crim 1344 (a case which dealt with lipreading evidence) the Vice President in giving the judgment of the court dealt with the need in certain ca......
-
R v Reed; R v Garmson
...weight of the evidence should be established by the same adversarial forensic techniques applicable elsewhere.� iii) In R v Luttrell [2004] EWCA Crim 1344 (where the expert evidence was that of lip reading), the court observed at paragraph 37 that �although at one time a more conservative a......
-
R. v. Aitken (D.C.M.), (2012) 319 B.C.A.C. 125 (CA)
...81]. R. v. Ciantar, [2005] EWCA Crim 3559, refd to. [para. 87]. R. v. Otway, [2011] EWCA Crim 3, consd. [para. 87]. R. v. Luttrell, [2004] EWCA Crim 1344, refd to. [para. J.M.P. Firestone, for the appellant; M.K. Levitz, Q.C., for the respondent. This appeal was heard at Vancouver, B.C., on......
-
Experts and pretenders: Examining possible responses to misconduct by experts in criminal trials in England and Wales
...19A.1(ii)—‘it is needed to provide the court with informationlikely to be outside the court’s own knowledge and experience’.6. [2004] EWCA Crim 1344.7. Luttrell, above n. 5 at [32].8. [1894] 2 QB 766.9. The word ‘peritus’ is Latin for ‘expert’.182 The International Journal of Evidence & Pro......
-
Subject Index
...116 THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EVIDENCE & PROOF 277 INDEXESR v Langley [2001] Crim LR 651 ...... 174R v Luttrell [2004] EWCA Crim 1344 ............................................. 248–251R v Lydiate [2004] EWCA Crim 245 .. 116R v M (1994) 16 Cr App R (S) 770 .......43R v Maguire (Anne) a......
-
Table of Cases
.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85R v Loveridge [2001] EWCA Crim 973,[2001] 2 Cr App R 29 . . . . . . . . . . . .79, 83, 203R v Luttrell [2004] EWCA Crim 1344 . . . . . . . 231R v Lynch (1978) 40 CCC (2d) 7, Ont CA . . . . . 126R v Maihi (2002) 19 CRNZ 453, CA . . . . . . . . . 101R v Mapara [2......
-
Table of Cases
...S.C.R. 263, 9 C.R.N.S. 165, 9 D.L.R. (3d) 1 ............................................. 71 [264 ] Table of Cases R. v. Luttrell, [2004] EWCA Crim 1344............................................................................... 40, 80 R. v. Lynxleg, [2002] M.J. No. 352, 168 C.C.C. (3d) ......