R v Jones (Robert)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | MR. JUSTICE WALLER,THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE,MR. JUSTICE COOKE |
| Judgment Date | 17 March 1971 |
| Neutral Citation | [1971] EWCA Crim J0317-2 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1970] EWCA Crim J0929-10 |
| Docket Number | No. 3612/C/70,No. 5321/A/70 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
| Date | 17 March 1971 |
[1970] EWCA Crim J0929-10
Lord Justice Widgery
Mr. Justice Cantley
Mr. Justice Waller
No. 3612/C/70
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
THE APPELLANT was not represented.
On 14th May at Lancashire Quarter Sessions the applicant pleaded guilty to driving while disqualified and was sentenced to 9 months imprisonment, his licence was endorsed and he was disqualified from driving for 18 months consecutive to the total period of disqualification to which he was then subject. He was further disqualified for 6 months under the totting up provision.
His application has been referred to the full Court because of a technical matter of the propriety of the concurrent disqualification for totting up. It appears also that the court itself was concerned as to whether or not it was right to take into account, as was done, one other offence of driving while disqualified.
was it in order to take that other offence into account? In the case of ( R. -v- Collins 1947 1 All England Reports 147) this point arose for consideration and it was then made clear that it would not be right to take into account an offence for which there could be disqualification, such as taking and driving away or driving while disqualified, when the principal offence was one of a completely different kind. But Lord Goddard, the Lord Chief Justice, added, "No doubt, if a man is charged on indictment with an offence under the Road Traffic Act for which he is liable to be disqualified, and there is a second charge against him for the same class of offence, the court might take that into account." That is precisely what was done in this case. The principal offence was one of driving while disqualified and the offence taken into consideration was another offence of driving while disqualified, so that when a period of disqualification was being imposed for the principal offence, the period could take into consideration the other offence. So it was, in the view of this Court, perfectly proper for the Deputy Chairman to allow that other offence to be taken into consideration, it being a similar kind of offence.
The second point that arises was the form of the order of disqualification. The Deputy Chairman disqualified for 18 months and made the compulsory totting up disqualification run concurrently. Unfortunately, that is not correct because the Road Traffic Act, 1962, Section 5(5) says that the period of any such disqualification shall be in addition to any other period of disqualification imposed. It was no doubt a slip of the tongue on the part of the Deputy Chairman who probably had in mind the note at the bottom of Stone's Justices Manual in dealing with that sub-section.
This Court will modify the order by making the disqualification 12 months consecutive to the total period of disqualification and the totting up disqualification an additional 6 months, making 18 Months in all and leaving the disqualification unaffected in total. Leave to appeal will be granted, this will be treated as the appeal and to that extent the appeal will be allowed. The effect of what this Court is doing is simply a technical readjustment. The appellant is left with precisely the same disqualification as before.
Apart from that, the appeal is dismissed.
[1971] EWCA Crim J0317-2
The Lord Chief Justice of England (Lord Parker)
Lord Justice Widgery
and
Mr. Justice Cooke
No. 5321/A/70
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
MR. J. LLOYD-ELEY, Q.C. and MR. R. STURGESS appeared as Counsel for the Applicant.
MR. R. DUCANN appeared as amicus curiae.
Mr. Justice Cooke will give the Judgment of the Court.
On 26th June 1970 this applicant appeared at the Central Criminal Court on two charges of conspiracy to defraud, one of theft and eight of fraudulent conversion.
The substance of the charges of conspiracy was that the applicant and his co-accused had conspired to induce owners of motor vehicles to part with those vehicles for sale, by means of false representations that a minimum agreed price would be secured for the owners or the vehicles would be returned to them.
The substance of each of the charges of fraudulent conversion was that having been entrusted with a motor vehicle on sale or return terms the applicant converted the vehicle or the proceeds of it to his own use.
On 22nd July the prosecution closed their case and the trial Judge then heard submissions of law on behalf of the applicant that there was no case to answer on the counts of fraudulent conversion. On 27th July the judge ruled against those submissions and on the same day the applicant informed his solicitors that if convicted he would wish to appeal on the ground that the submissions should have been upheld.
On 28th July the applicant absconded. The trial proceeded in his absence, and on 5th August the time came when in the ordinary course of events counsel would have begun to present his defence. Counsel understandably took the view that it was impracticable to present the defence in the absence of the applicant, and an application was made to the judge to discharge the jury from returning verdicts on the charges against him. That application having been refused, the applicant's solicitors felt obliged to instruct counsel to withdraw from the case, and both counsel and the solicitors were thereupon excused by the court from taking further part in the proceedings.
On 19th August 1970 the applicant was convicted on one of the conspiracy counts and on all eight counts of fraudulent conversion. On the conspiracy count he was sentenced to five years imprisonment and on each of the fraudulent conversion counts to three years imprisonment, all concurrent. Those sentences were passed in his absence, and he has never since been apprehended.
Now on 13th November 1969 the South Western Magistrates Court had granted legal aid to the applicant under sections 73 and 75 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 for the following purposes:-
"Proceedings before the Central Criminal Court in connection with trial…….including, in the event of his being convicted or sentenced in those proceedings, advice and assistance in regard to the making of an appeal to the criminal division of the Court of Appeal as provided in section 74(7) of the Criminal Justice Act 1967."
On 8th September 1970 a notice of application for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence and for legal aid was prepared and signed by Jones's solicitors on his behalf without any instructions other than those which they had received before Jones absconded, The notice was supported by grounds of appeal similarly signed. Among those grounds are the following:-
-
(1) "The Learned Trial Judge misdirected himself in refusing to discharge the jury and continuing the trial of the appellant when the appellant failed to attend the trial after the close of the case for the prosecution."
-
(2) "The Learned Trial Judge misdirected himself in holding on submission at the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R v Charles (Jerome) (Leave to Appeal); R v Tucker (Lee Nigel)
...just before the trial judge began his summing-up and thus not having given authority after conviction for this appeal to be commenced (see R v Jones (1971) 55 Cr. App R. 321). As the applicant has not given the appropriate authority, leave to appeal is refused." 32 We return to the case of ......
-
R v McCready
...of timethere can be no appeal. If any authority is required for what we regard as a self-evident proposition it is to be found in R. -v- Jones (1971) 55 Criminal Appeal Reports, page 321. 9 The next problem is whether Hurd can appeal against his conviction, having regard to his plea of guil......
- R v Maguire
- R v Criminal Cases Review Commission, ex parte Pearson