R v Hulusi
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE LAWTON |
| Judgment Date | 14 December 1973 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1973] EWCA Crim J1214-3 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
| Docket Number | No. 1103/B/73 |
| Date | 14 December 1973 |
[1973] EWCA Crim J1214-3
Lord Justice Lawton
Mr. Justice Nield
and
Mr. Justice Eveleigh
No. 1103/B/73
No. 1113/B/73
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
MR. R. SIMPSON, Q.C., and MR. S. PARRISH appeared on behalf of the Appellants.
MR. N. PURNELL appeared on behalf of the Crown.
On the 2nd February, 1973 at the Central Criminal Court, after a trial before His Honour Judge Gwyn Morris and a jury, the Appellants Kolliari Mehmet Hulusi and Maurice Malcolm Purvis were convicted by a majority verdict of 10 to 2 on two counts of robbery. Each was sentenced to three years' imprisonment on each count, the sentences to run concurrently. In the Appellant Purvis's case an order was also made bringing into operation unaltered and consecutively sentences of nine months and three months' imprisonment concurrent for handling stolen goods and possessing an offensive weapon which had been imposed on the 19th March, 1970 at the Inner London Quarter Sessions, the sentences then being suspended for three years from that date. The effect of these sentences was that the Appellant Hulusi was sentenced to a total of three years' imprisonment and the Appellant Purvis to three years and nine months.
Both applied for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence. On the hearing of the application before this Court the Court gave leave to appeal and counsel on their behalf agreed to treat the hearing as the hearing of the appeal and to waive on behalf of the Appellants their statutory right to be present.
The facts out of which the case arose can be stated very shortly indeed because they have little bearing upon the matters which this Court has had to investigate.
Two Scotsmen, one named McColl and the other named Buchan, made a business visit to London. On the evening of the 8th November, 1972 they went to Soho for dinner. They were either taken to or found – it matters not – an establishment calling itself the Lido Club/Restaurant in a basement in Frith Street, Soho. The Appellant Purvis was the doorman-cum-receptionist and the other Appellant was a waiter there.
The two Scotsmen were in this place for some time. Whilst they were there, according to them, they had nothing more than a meal and a bottle of whisky of which they said they drank about three-quarters. They alleged that when they left they were presented with a bill for £68 and when they asked how that bill was made up they were told it included the services of two so-called hostesses, the purchase of champagne and tobacco and meals for these girls. They declined to pay and their evidence was that they had then been beaten up by these two Appellants and made to part with £50, which was all they had on them. They were undoubtedly injured whilst they were in this establishment. When they got out of it they sought out the Police and complained about the way they had been treated.
When investigations started the explanation put forward on behalf of the establishment was that these two Scotsmen had in fact ordered and enjoyed the items which were on their bill; that there was really no reason for them to complain; and they had not been beaten up in the club. It was also suggested somewhat faintly that if one of them had got an injury to his eye, it may have happened when he went to the lavatory when he might have fallen down in his then drunken state.
Those facts speak for themselves. It was a simple case and in the ordinary way the prospects of a successful defence would have been poor.
At the trial the defendants were represented by Mr. Parrish, who is an experienced member of the Bar. He drafted the notice of appeal which can be summarised in these terms: that the learned Judge so tried the case that it was impossible for him to conduct the case for the defence as it should have been conducted. The basis for that complaint was that during the presentation of the prosecution's case Mr. Parrish's cross-examination was frequently interrupted, suggestions were made to him that he was not performing his duty as counsel as he should have performed it and questions were asked of the witnesses from time to time which indicated that the Judge was acting, so to speak, as an additional prosecuting counsel.
The next matter of which Mr. Parrish complained was this, that when he came to call the Appellants and their witnesses the Judge frequently interrupted. He raised issues which were of no importance in the case at all. When the witnesses were giving answers to the questions which Mr. Parrish had asked them, the Judge would quickly intervene and start cross-examining the witnesses on their answers. This was long before prosecuting counsel had an opportunity of asking anything at all.
Finally Mr. Parrish alleged that this manner of trying a case made it difficult for defending counsel to present the defence. Illustrations were given of the way in which Mr. Parrish's task as counsel had been impeded.
It is now well established how, when complaints of this kind are made about the conduct of a trial Judge, this Court should approach the questions which have to be resolved. There have been a number of judgments. The leading one is that of Lord Parker, Lord Chief Justice, in the case of Reg. v. Hamilton, which was dealt with in this Court on the 9th June, 1969. Unfortunately this case has never been reported in any of the well known series of Law Reports.
Fortunately the problems which arise in this case were anticipated by the Registrar and counsel for the Appellants' was provided with a transcript of Lord Parker's judgment. The kernel of the judgment comes on page 5 of the transcript and it is in these terms: "The second and the real ground for the appeal in the present case concerns these interventions. Of course it has been recognised always that it is wrong for a Judge to descend into the arena and give the impression of acting as advocate. Not only is it wrong but very often a Judge can do more harm than leaving it to experienced Counsel. Whether his interventions in any case give ground for quashing a conviction is not only a matter of degree but depends to what the interventions are directed and what their effect may be. Interventions to clear up ambiguities, interventions to enable the Judge to make certain that he is making an accurate note, are of course perfectly justified. But the interventions which...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R v M
...absence, for instance, when she went to play bingo. 38 The law in this area has been settled for a considerable period of time. In R v Hulusi v Purvis [1974] 58 Cr App R 378 at page 382, Lawton LJ quoting from the judgment of Lord Parker in R v Hamilton, the Court of Appeal (Criminal Divisi......
-
O'Grady Plant and Haulage Ltd v Tower Hamlets LBC
...manner". He submits that the judge's conduct during the closing stages of the appellant's evidence fell foul of the principles set out in Hulusi. 45 In relation to the appellant's re-examination the only matter relied on in the course of argument was a question by the judge as to whether a ......
-
ICIC (Overseas) Ltd v Adham
...W.L.R. 1453; [1994] 1 All E.R. 156, applied. (6) R. v. Gough, [1993] A.C. 646; [1993] 2 All E.R. 724, applied. (7) R. v. HulusiUNK (1973), 58 Cr. App. R. 378, followed. (8) R. v. StephensonUNK(1974), 12 J.L.R. 1681; 22 W.I.R. 458, considered. (9) Rolled Steel Prods. (Holdings) Ltd. v. Briti......
- Brown v R 1993 Criminal Appeal No. 10