R v Headley
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 13 February 1995 |
| Date | 13 February 1995 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
Court of Appeal
Before Lord Taylor of Gosforth, Lord Chief Justice, Mr Justice Popplewell and Mrs Justice Steel
Crime - perverting the course of justice - actus reus - acquiescence insufficient
A defendant who ignored a summons in his name and who allowed informations alleging contraventions of the Road Traffic Act 1988 committed by his brother to be proved in his own name, did not thereby do a series of acts tending to pervert the course of justice.
The Court of Appeal so held when allowing the appeal of Anthony Michael Headley against his conviction on July 4, 1994 following a change of plea to guilty after a ruling by Judge Maclaren Webster, QC, at Salisbury Crown Court, of one count of perverting the course of justice between August 25, 1991 and September 8, 1992, on which he was fined £350 and ordered to pay £500 towards the costs of the prosecution.
Mr Geoffrey Kelly, assigned by the Registrar of Criminal Appeals, for the appellant; Mr Charles Cochand for the Crown.
THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE, giving the judgment of the court, said that on August 26, 1991 when the appellant's brother was driving the appellant's car it was stopped by a police officer because it was not displaying a vehicle excise licence.
The officer issued a form requiring the production of documents at a police station. The documents were not produced and a summons was issued in the appellant's name. He did not attend court and was sentenced in his absence at Skegness Magistrates Court on September 7, 1992 for driving without a licence, having no insurance or test certificate and failing to produce insurance and a test certificate to the police. He was fined a total of £260, ordered to pay £20 costs and his licence was endorsed with eight penalty points.
He did not make regular payments and the matter was sent to the Salisbury Magistrates Court, which sought to recover the fine and costs. The matter came to light when a police officer executed a warrant for non-payment of fines and the appellant gave a different date of birth from that on the warrant. He explained the discrepancy by saying that his brother had been stopped when driving the appellant's car and had given the wrong date of birth.
The terms of the indictment were important: "Perverting the course of justice. Particulars of offence: (the appellant) on a day between August 25, 1991 and September 8, 1992 did a series of acts tending to pervert the course of justice...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Queen (on the application of Dominic Purvis) v The Director of Public Prosecutions
...the course of public justice. 46 A positive act, whether of concealment or distortion, is required. Inaction is insufficient: ( Headley [1996] R.T.R. 173, CA (failing to respond to a summons); Clark [2003] EWCA Crim 991; [2003] R.T.R. 27; Jabber [2006] EWCA Crim 2694 (§ 47 In R v Sinha [......
-
James Forbes v R
...divert, or disrupt the course of justice suffices. It requires some positive action and so inaction will not suffice (see R v Headley [1996] RTR 173; [1995] Crim LR 737). Consequently, conduct which may lead and is intended to lead to a miscarriage of justice, whether that miscarriage actua......
-
R v Carole Denise Norman
...failures to act. The offence of doing acts tending and intended to pervert the course of public justice cannot be committed by omissions, Headley [1995] Crim LR 737." 33 It is accepted that ground 4 only arises if the appeal in relation to count 2 is successful because count 4 says: "Since ......
-
Hksar v Cheung Kin Chung
...positive act by the proposed defendant is required to prove the offence. Inaction is insufficient to constitute the offence (R v Headley [1996] RTR 173, CA). As a prima facie case for the alleged offence was not made out, the application was The grounds of appeal 11. In all three cases, the......