R v Gray ; R v Liggins ; R v Rowlands ; R v Ridings
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 29 July 1994 |
| Date | 29 July 1994 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
Court of Appeal
Before Lord Justice Glidewell, Mr Justice Blofeld and Mr Justice Buxton
Criminal evidence - common enterprise - involvement of each to be shown
Where a conspiracy was not charged, the principle, that where two persons were engaged in a common enterprise the acts and declarations of one in pursuance of that common purpose were admissible against the other, applied to the commission by two or more people acting in concert of a substantive offence or a series of offences and was limited to evidence which showed the involvement of each of the defendants in the commission of the offence or offences.
The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, so held in allowing appeals by David John Gray, William James Liggins, Catherine Mary Rowlands and Mark Riding against their convictions in June 1992 at the Central Criminal Court (Judge Laughland, QC and a jury) of dealing in securities knowing of unpublished price sensitive information and/or communicating such information to another while being a prohibited person, contrary to section 1(4) and 1(8) of the Company Securities (Insider Dealing) Act 1985.
Miss Clare Montgomery for the Gray, Mr Roderick Price for Liggins, Mr Peter Lodder for Rowlands and Mr Paul Spencer for Riding, all counsel assigned by the Registrar of Criminal Appeals; Mr Peter W Clarke and Mr Philip Katz for the Crown.
THEIR LORDSHIPS, reading the reserved judgment of the court in turn, said that the four appellants were charged with offences of communicating unpublished price sensitive information and dealing with knowledge of such information in the shares of three companies: Rank Hovis McDougall plc, Hawthorne Leslie Group plc and Pleasurama plc. At the conclusion of the evidence for the prosecution, the judge held that none of the defendants had a case to answer on the Pleasurama counts and in due course directed the jury to find them not guilty on those counts.
On appeal they submitted, inter alia, that in respect of all the counts against all the appellants the judge wrongly admitted evidence which was inadmissible because (a) it concerned only the Pleasurama transactions, on which he had ruled there was no case to answer; or (b) it was evidence relevant only to the RHM counts and not the Hawthorne counts and was thus not admissible against Mr Liggins who was not concerned in the RHM transactions; or (c) it was evidence of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Beacher v R
...[2004] 1 W.L.R. 1689; (2004), 18 BHRC 429; 101 (15) L.S. Gaz. 28; [2004] UKPC 17, dicta of Lord Carswell applied. (2) R. v. Gray, [1995] 2 Cr. App. R. 100; [1995] Crim. L.R. 45; (1994), 91 (39) L.S. Gaz. 38, distinguished. (3) R. v. Jones, [1997] 2 Cr. App. R. 119; [1996] Crim. L.R. 901, re......
-
Cannonier v The Director of Public Prosecutions; Isaac et Al v The Director of Public Prosecutions
...by Glidewell L.J. in Gray ( R v. David John Gray, R v. William James Liggins, R v. Mark Riding, R v. Catherine Mary Rowlands [1995] 2 Cr. App. R. 100.); see also Jones ( R v. Brian Jones, R v. Roy Williams, R v. Edward Barham [1997] 2 Cr. App. R. 119, 127-128.). 4. It is a matter for the tr......
-
Romeo Cannonier Appellant v DPP Respondent [ECSC]
...v R (1961) 104 C.L.R. 1, 7 . 63 R v David John Gray , R v William James Liggins, R v Mark Riding, R v Catherine Mary Rowlands [1995] 2 Cr. App. R. 100. 64 R v Brian Jones , R v Roy Williams, R v Edward Barham [1997] 2 Cr. App. R. 119, 65 R v Derrick Devenport , R v Vincenzo Pirano [1996] 1......
-
Romeo Cannonier Appellant v DPP Respondent [ECSC]
...v R (1961) 104 C.L.R. 1, 7 . 63 R v David John Gray , R v William James Liggins, R v Mark Riding, R v Catherine Mary Rowlands [1995] 2 Cr. App. R. 100. 64 R v Brian Jones , R v Roy Williams, R v Edward Barham [1997] 2 Cr. App. R. 119, 65 R v Derrick Devenport , R v Vincenzo Pirano [1996] 1......
-
Table of Cases
...All ER 435. . . . . . . . . . . . 232R v Governor of Pentonville Prison, ex p.Osman (1990) 90 Cr App R 281 . . . . . 112, 126R v Gray [1995] 2 Cr App R 100 . . . . . . . . 109, 127R v Gray [2005] EWCA Crim 3564 . . . . . . . . . . 245R v Griffiths [1965] 3 WLR 405, [1966]1 QB 589, CA . . . ......
-
The Common Enterprise Exception to the Hearsay Rule
...COMMON ENTERPRISE EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE8 H. J. Laski, ‘The Basis of Vicarious Liability’ (1916) 26 Yale LJ 105 at 122–3.9 [1995] 2 Cr App R 100 at 125.10 [1997] 2 Cr App R 136.11 RvFellowes (1859) 19 UCQB 48. In RvParnell (1881) 14 Cox CC 508, the court held that ‘it may be thatthe ......