R v Groom
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE,LORD JUSTICE JAMES |
| Judgment Date | 20 February 1976 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1976] EWCA Crim J0220-11 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
| Docket Number | No. 3778/C/75 |
| Date | 20 February 1976 |
[1976] EWCA Crim J0220-11
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
The Lord Chief Justice of England (Lord Widgery)
Lord Justice James
Mr. Justice Kilner Brown
Mr. Justice Griffiths
and
Mr. Justice Watkins
No. 3778/C/75
MR. J. ROGERS, Q.C. and MR. P. SHIER appeared on behalf of the Appellant.
MR. J.C. MATHEW and MR. D. PAGET appeared on behalf of the Crown.
The judgment which Lord Justice James will read is the judgment of the Court.
On the 7th July, 1974 at the Central Criminal Court the Appellant Groom and six others were charged on an indictment containing six counts. Groom was charged alone in the sixth count with handling stolen goods. He was not charged in any other of the counts in which the co-accused were variously charged with offences of incitement to commit and counselling and procuring the commission of a particular burglary, robbery and handling stolen property. Counsel on behalf of Groom moved to quash the indictment on the ground that it contravened the provisions of section 2(2) of the Administration of Justice Act, 1933. The motion was refused.
On the 24th July Groom was convicted. His appeal against conviction and sentence came before this Court on the 23rd January, 1976 when, in view of the general importance of one of the grounds argued the appeal was adjourned for hearing before a Court constituted of five Judges.
On the 29th January we allowed the appeal against conviction on the ground that we thought that the verdict was unsatisfactory in view of the way Groom's case was left to the jury in the summing-up, but we rejected the Appellant's argument upon the point which is of general importance and said we would give our reasons in a written judgment.
On the 13th February, 1975 three of the co-accused robbed a Miss Rogers at her flat. One of those three lived at Groom's house, another was the boy-friend of Groom's daughter who, herself, counselled and procured the robbery. The goods stolen included two coats. On the 18th February Groom was arrested and on the following day he made two statements in writing. The case put forward by the Crown against Groom relied entirely upon the content of his statements. In turn, Groom relied entirely on the content of those statements in support of his defence that he had not acted dishonestly. He did not give evidence but in a statement from the dock told the jury that the written statements contained the full account of his involvement. In the statement, Exhibit 25, he admitted that he had been informed by one of the robbers that two coats, which "could be stolen goods", were in a case in the boot of Groom's car and that a man named John would call for them. He further admitted that he thereafter saw the coats and allowed a man to take them away. There was other evidence in the case and further admissions in the statement which, had Groom been charged with conspiracy to rob or to burgle, might well have been adduced against him on that charge but which were not evidence on the handling charge. For example, the evidence in the case against the robbers and Groom's daughter established that Groom's car was used as transport in the course of observations on Miss Roger's flat prior to the robbery and also on the occasion of the robbery.
On the 14th April, 1975 those persons subsequently indicted were committed for trial. There were three separate committal proceedings before the Magistrates: the Appellant Groom alone was committed under the provisions of section 1 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1967 upon the evidence contained in five witness statements made by police officers; the remaining co-accused on the indictment were separately committed in two groups upon witness statements other than those served on Groom as the evidence supporting his committal.
By letter dated the 30th June, 1975 the Solicitor to the Metropolitan Police informed Groom's solicitor that other persons had been committed for trial and included in the indictment against Groom. At the Central Criminal Court no point was taken — nor could it have been taken successfully — as to joinder of the offences or the defendants in the same indictment. It was conceded before us that if the indictment was valid then the persons named on the indictment and the offences charged against them were validly joined. The argument for the Appellant was that the indictment contained counts additional to the one count charging the offence for which he had been committed, and the addition of those counts rendered the indictment liable to be quashed on the ground that it contravened the provisions of section 2(2) of the Administration of Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1933. It is this argument which is of general importance. We were told that in circumstances in which different persons have been separately committed for offences which can lawfully be charged in counts in the same indictment, and the committals take place before the indictment in respect of any one committal has been signed, the practice at the Central Criminal Court and at all the Crown Court centres in the Inner London Area is to join in one indictment the counts founded upon the separate committals. The practice has the advantage that it avoids recourse to the alternative procedure of seeking leave to prefer a bill of indictment and makes unnecessary the work of preparing affidavits in support of an application for such leave. The practice however does not appear to be adopted at all Crown Court centres. If it is lawful the practice is a useful and convenient procedure available at all Crown Court centres.
The Administration of Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1933 section 2(2) reads as follows, so far as is material (and I read it as amended by the Criminal Appeal Act, 1964): "Subject as hereinafter provided no bill of indictment charging any person with an indictable offence shall be preferred unless either- (a) the person charged has been committed for trial for the offence; or (b) the bill is preferred by the direction of the Court of Criminal Appeal or by the direction or with the consent of a judge of the High Court or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R v Follett
...prosecution elect the one on which the trial shall proceed." It is true that the case upon which that Practice Direction was based, namely R. v. Groom, reported at page 242 of the same volume, was not concerned with two indictments based on the same committal, but the words of the Practice ......
- R v Townsend
- R v Maharaj; and other appeals
-
The Queen v Ricky Terrence Powell
...committed for trial for offences which can lawfully be charged in counts in the same indictment may be joined with other defendants: see R v Groom. 10 Only in very exceptional circumstances should separate trials be ordered where two or more persons are charged with the same offence: see Mo......
-
ENLARGED PANELS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF SINGAPORE
...State for Social Services [1972] AC 944; R v Lillis [1972] 2 QB 236; R v Breeze [1973] 1 WLR 994; R v Medway [1976] 1 QB 779; R v Groom [1977] 1 QB 6; R v Weeder (1980) 71 Cr App R 228; Pepper v Hart [1993] AC 593; Boyce v The Queen [2005] 1 AC 400; In re Trinity Mirror plc [2008] QB 770; R......