R v Greenfield
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Date | 1973 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
Crime - Conspiracy - Indictment - Indictment containing count charging defendants with conspiracy over period of years - Evidence of other conspiracies adduced at trial - Whether conspiracy count bad for duplicity - Whether trial unfair because of conspiracy count
The defendants, being the appellants and their co-defendants, were tried on an indictment containing 11 counts and by count I they were all charged with having conspired to cause explosions between January 1968 and August 1971. The prosecution evidence was that there had been 25 explosions or attempted explosions during the period, which had common features, they alleged that the defendants were responsible for all of them and to prove the appellants' membership of the conspiracy, they adduced evidence of association over a long period and the finding of explosives, firearms, documents and sundry articles in their flat. The defendants sought to establish in cross-examination that the facts were equally consistent with more than one conspiracy and the appellants alleged that the articles found in their flat had been planted there by the police. The appellants were convicted of conspiracy and of other offences charged and the co-defendants were acquitted.
On appeal against their convictions on the grounds, inter alia, that the conspiracy count was bad in law because as the trial progressed the evidence was consistent with more than one conspiracy and that the presence of the conspiracy count in the indictment resulted in a trial which was unfair to them: —
Held, dismissing the appeals, (1) that the conspiracy count had correctly alleged one conspiracy and, therefore, was not bad for duplicity and, although the defence evidence might show the possibility of there being more than one conspiracy, there was evidence on which the jury could convict the appellants of the conspiracy charged and, since they had been properly directed that they must look with care to ensure that it was one and the same agreement to conspire over the period before convicting the appellants, the conspiracy count was not bad in law (post, pp. 1156F–1157C).
Per curiam. If the prosecution on a charge of conspiracy leads evidence tending to show that the defendants, or some of them, were members of another conspiracy, such evidence is prima facie irrelevant and it should be excluded unless its admission can be justified on some well established principle, as for example, that it provides evidence of system (post, P.1157D).
(2) That, since the count of conspiracy was justified in the circumstances of the present case (post, p. 1158A) and had neither been unfair to the appellants nor caused them any hardship, the appeals would be dismissed.
The following cases are referred to in the judgment:
Reg. v. Davey [
Reg. v. Dawson [
Reg. v. Griffiths [
Rex v. Cooper [
Rex v. West [
The following additional cases were cited in argument:
Reg. v. Doot [
Reg. v. Hammersley (
Reg. v. Sweetland (
APPEALS against convictions.
The appellants, James Greenfield, John Barker, Hilary Anne Creek and Anna Mendleson, all aged 24, were charged, with four co-defendants, James Stuart Christie, Christopher Michael George Bott, Catherine Judith McLean and Angela Margaret Weir, on May 30, 1972, at the Central Criminal Court, before James J., on an indictment containing 11 counts. Count 1 alleged that the appellants and the co-defendants between January 1, 1968, and August 21, 1971, unlawfully and maliciously conspired together with Jack Prescott and other persons unknown to cause by explosive substances explosions in the United Kingdom of a nature likely to endanger life or to cause serious injury to property. Count 2 charged the appellant Greenfield with attempting to cause an explosion; count 3 charged the appellants Greenfield and Mendleson with attempting to cause explosions; by count 4, the co-defendant Christie was charged with possession of a round of ammunition without a firearms certificate; by count 5, the appellants and the co-defendants Christie and Bott were charged with possession of explosive substances; by count 6, the appellants Greenfield, Barker and Creek were charged with possession of explosive substances; by count 7, the appellants Greenfield, Barker and Creek were charged with receiving stolen property; by count 8, the co-defendant Christie was charged with possession of explosive substances; by count 9, the appellants and the co-defendants Christie and Bott were charged with possession of a pistol without a firearms certificate; by count 10, the appellants and the co-defendants Christie and Bott were charged with possession of rounds of ammunition without a firearms certificate; and by count 11 the appellants and the co-defendants Christie and Bott were charged with possession of automatic firearms without authority. After a trial lasting 23 weeks, the appellants were each convicted, on December 6, 1972, on counts 1, 5, 9, 10 and 11 and were each sentenced to concurrent terms of imprisonment of 10 years (on count 1), eight years (on count 5), two years (on count 9), two years (on count 10) and three years (on count 11). The co-defendants were acquitted on all counts charged against them.
The appellants appealed against their convictions on the grounds, inter alia (1) that it was wrong to charge the appellants with count 1 (the conspiracy count) which was alleged to extend from January 1, 1968, to August 15, 1971, because, inter alia, (a) the judge did not know of what it was that the jury had convicted the appellants; (b) that where there was a substantive count, e.g. counts 2 and 3, the appellant Greenfield and the appellants Greenfield and Mendleson were acquitted; (c) that the judge advised the jury to consider the substantive counts first and the most serious count of all (the conspiracy count) last. (2) That the judge did not adequately direct the jury that they must find as a fact that there was only one conspiracy, in that he should have told the jury (i) that if there was a sensible possibility that the incidents were merely related events and not the result of a common and enduring purpose and plan, or (ii) that if it were a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R v Abdulla Ahmed Ali and Others
...receive a sentence of five years or one of 25 years. This practice was approved at least as long ago as 1973 when this court made clear in Greenfield (to which we refer in more detail at paragraphs 43 and 47) that the judge had to assess for the purpose of sentence what part each had played......
-
R v Syed Mehtab
...no evidence that the appellant knew anything of that wider conspiracy that was the subject of the indictment. 19 We have been referred to R v Greenfield [1973] 1 WLR 1151, at 1156H–1157A, where, in giving the judgment of this court, Lord Widgery CJ said this: "… at the end of the prosecuti......
- R v Hendy-Freegard (Robert)
-
Martin Jno Baptiste v The King
...the prosecution to prove the offence (e.g, a single act of obtaining by deception where the deception involved several misrepresentation R v Greenfield 1973 3 All ER 1050. 36 The learned DPP submitted that none of these circumstances exist in the case at bar. He also relied on the followin......