R v Huchison
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE PHILLIMORE |
| Judgment Date | 20 January 1972 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1972] EWCA Crim J0120-12 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
| Docket Number | No. 3963/B/71 |
| Date | 20 January 1972 |
[1972] EWCA Crim J0120-12
The Lord Chief Justice of England (Lord Widgery)
Lord Justice Phillimore
and
Mr. Justice Lawson
No. 3963/B/71
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
MR. R. E. HAMMERTON appeared as Counsel for the Appellant.
This Appellant pleaded guilty on the 22nd July last at Lewes Assizes to a single count of incest with his daughter, a girl under 16 at the time. He was sentenced at an adjourned hearing on the 26th July to four years' imprisonment.
The position was this, that he had admitted to one act, but the girl had made a statement in which she had referred to this man, the father, making sexual approaches to her from the age of six onwards, to an attempt at intercourse with her when she was about 13, and to another act thereafter in which he succeeded. According to her statement he had then taken her out regularly following intercourse, taking her to a night club and to various public houses and giving her presents, and then when his wife left the home she had moved into his bed and they had had intercourse almost every night up until about February 1970, when he had brought another woman into the house, after which intercourse between herself and her father had ceased, and she indeed thereafter had left the house.
The learned Judge felt - and one sympathises with him -that he must make up his mind as to what was the truth of all this, whether this man had really only had intercourse on the one occasion with which he was charged and which he admitted, or whether the truth of the matter was as described by the daughter. So on the 26th July he proceeded to hear evidence; he heard the father, he heard him give evidence in chief, cross-examined and re-examined, then he heard the evidence of the daughter. At the conclusion of it all he said this at page 22 of the transcript: "Well, you know, my conclusion is that this story about that one occasion is just not true. I am not saying I am prepared to take Linda's statement as it stands, but it is perfectly obvious to me that the Defendant had made a habit of having intercourse with his daughter", and he thereafter proceeded to pass this sentence of four years on that occasion pointing out that this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Attorney General v Marques
...he has heard on the extent of the offending conduct beyond the instances specified in individual counts. But this, as it was put in Reg. v. Huchison [1972] 1 W.L.R. 398,.400 is to deprive the appellant of his right to trial by jury in respect of the other alleged offences. Unless such other......
-
Attorney General v Marques
...extent of the offending conduct beyond the incidents specified in individual counts. But this, as it was put in Reg. v. Huchison [1972] 1 W.L.R. 398 at p. 400 is to “deprive the appellant of his right to trial by jury in respect of the other alleged offences'. Unless such other offences ar......
-
DPP v Wayne O'Donoghue
...the extent of the offending conduct beyond the incidents specified in individual counts. But this, as it was put in Reg. v. Huchinson [1972] 1 W.L.R. 398 at p. 400 is to "deprive the appellant of his right to trial by jury in respect of the other alleged offences". Unless such other offence......
-
R v Kidd; R v Canavan; R v Shaw
...he has heard on the extent of the offending conduct beyond the instances specified in individual counts. But this, as it was put in R v Huchison (1972) 56 Cr App R 307 at 309, [1972] 1 WLR 398 at 400 is to "deprive the appellant of his right to trial by jury in respect of the other alleged......
-
Courts of Appeal
...argued that the judge should haveconfined himself to punishing him on the basisofthe single cheque for£50. Thus, in R. v. Hutchinson (1972, 1W.L.R.398;36J.eL.228)a man charged with one single actofincest who was sentenced on thebasisofother acts proved to the judge immediately before senten......