R v King (Ashley)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE |
| Judgment Date | 10 December 1999 |
| Neutral Citation | [1999] EWCA Crim J1210-16 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1999] EWCA Crim J1210-5 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
| Docket Number | No. 1999/01108/W3 |
| Date | 10 December 1999 |
[1999] EWCA Crim J1210-16
The Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales
(Lord Bingham of Cornhill)
Mr Justice Morison
and
Mr Justice Nelson
No. 1999/01108/W3
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL CRIMINAL DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
The Strand
London WC2
MRS V BAIRD and MR P WILCOCK appeared on behalf of THE APPLICANT
MR R THORN QC and MR C J PRINCE appeared on behalf of THE CROWN
On 11 July 1986, in the Crown Court at Newcastle upon Tyne before Owen J and a jury, the applicant was unanimously convicted of murder after a trial lasting eleven days. He was sentenced to life imprisonment. He did not apply for leave to appeal against conviction. He was aged 22 at the time.Accused and convicted with him was a 12-year-old co-defendant named Billy W. In August 1986 Billy W applied for and was granted leave to appeal against conviction. The appeal was heard by the full court on 22 June 1987, when the appeal was allowed and the conviction quashed. This court held, on page 9A of the transcript of the judgment on that appeal, that the case against Billy W depended on the evidence of Detective Sergeant Mock and that there was material to cast substantial doubt on the reliability of that officer's evidence. There was evidence given by that officer of an important conversation between Billy W and his parents, allegedly overheard by the officer but not entered in his notebook until a later date, when it was entered out of chronological order. The entry was said to have been copied from an original note made on a sheet of paper, which the officer said he had shown to his superior officer, but that officer had no recollection of seeing it. The court went on to say that there was no relevant evidence to show that Billy W had taken any part in the attack on the deceased or had had any intention to cause her serious harm.
The applicant now makes three applications. The first is for an extension of time in which to apply for to appeal against conviction, the extension sought being of twelve years, six months and eleven days. If that application is granted, the applicant seeks leave to appeal against conviction. And if that application is granted, the applicant seeks leave to adduce evidence not called at the trial.
The crime alleged was said to have been committed on 4 November 1985 when Mrs Greenwood, a widow aged 58 and crippled, who lived alone at 60, Abbey Drive, Houghton-le-Spring, was murdered. Her death was caused by at least four blows to the head with a blunt instrument. In addition, she received non-fatal stab wounds to the neck. A cushion was found lying on her chest, and petechial haemorrhages in her eyes indicated that an attempt had been made to suffocate her. Her house had been searched and about £270 stolen. The body of the deceased was found by a neighbour at 9.50am on 5 November, the following day. Upon examination of the house the police found no evidence of any forcible entry.
At the trial a Home Office pathologist gave evidence of the injuries to the deceased, which included those already mentioned. It was his opinion that bruising to the inside of the lips could have resulted from a punch to the mouth. The cause of death was a fracture of the skull and brain injury.
The prosecution case at trial was that some time between 7pm and 8.45pm on 4 November the applicant, together with Billy W and Billy W's six-year-old younger brother, had been collecting pennies for their guy in Abbey Drive. It was suggested that when the deceased answered her door she removed the security chain and that the applicant and Billy W entered the house. One of them was thought to have acted as a decoy while the other searched for money. The victim, it was thought, realised she was being robbed and the applicant and Billy W then killed her, possibly to prevent her giving evidence about the robbery. The case against the applicant was that he had hit her on the head with a hammer and Billy W was said to have stabbed her in the neck.
The applicant's defence at trial was that he and the W brothers had planned to collect pennies for their guy, but did not do so because it fell to pieces. The applicant said that they did not call at any houses and had not gone to Abbey Drive. He said he had made admissions to the police in interview because he had been pressurised and was depressed at the time. Any details he had given in interview about the murder had, he said, been fed to him by the interviewing officers.
The summary of his case given by the trial judge in his summing-up to the jury was in these terms:
"Ashley King, I have largely dealt with his evidence, but it is as well I think to remind you of what he said, as we put it, in chief because that is the essence of his version. He said this: 'I didn't kill the lady. I wasn't in Abbey Drive at all that evening. I did not have a hammer with me. I did say I was there, told the police that. It wasn't true, and the reason was they kept pressurizing me and I was depressed. The details which I gave I had received from the police'. He said in particular in answering to [prosecuting counsel] that 'They described the house, told us different things about it. He said, for instance, 'Did you put a cushion against her head?' and I said, 'Yes'. I just agreed. I thought that was what they wanted me to say. They were pressurizing me to say 'You were there'. They told me somebody had seen me there. They kept coming in all the time and they wouldn't believe anything I said. I thought they wanted me to admit the murder, so I did, but I did it because I was frightened, sick and depressed. I didn't know what would happen if I admitted murder. I don't know what happens to people who commit murder"."
There was no scientific evidence linking the applicant to either the victim's house or to the murder. The hammer identified as having been used in the attack was dismantled and subjected to close scientific examination. No trace of blood was found. No traces of blood were found on the applicant's clothes or trainers. There were no fingerprints or shoe prints linking him with the crime. It was the opinion of a forensic scientist who examined the scene that any assailant and weapon were likely to have been blood-stained.
The applicant, who was born on 1 June 1964, was 21 at the time of Mrs Greenwood's death. His first statement to the police was made on 6 November 1985, two days after her death, when he happened to be at a friend's house when the police called. He told them that he had known the victim when she lived opposite him when he was aged 16, but had not seen her since she moved. On 4 November, he said, he had been with his friend Eddy all afternoon before going home at about 5pm, and had then remained at home all evening with his mother. He described the victim as somebody who would not allow anyone past her front door. He said that he himself would not have been let in.
On 9 November he was seen a second time by Detective Sergeant Mock and Detective Constable Simpson. He repeated on that occasion that he had been at home all evening and had not known the victim for four to five years. It seems that after that interview the police for the time being eliminated the applicant from their suspicions.
On 14 November Detective Constable Dorward and Detective Constable Collinson spoke to the applicant at home in the presence of both his parents. He said he had not seen the victim for about nine years; that he had been at home from about 5.30 onwards on 4 November, and that was verified at that time by his mother.
We then come to the events of 15 November 1985. It is relevant to record that on that date the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, although enacted, had not been brought into force, nor had the Codes promulgated under it. The new procedures provided for in the Act and the Codes were, however, being implemented on a pilot basis by several police forces in the country, including that of Northumbria. It seems fair to infer that the officers dealing with this matter were familiar with the new procedures.
On the morning of 15 November the applicant was seen by the police at his home and taken to the police station on a voluntary basis at 11.10am. He was not arrested. He was subsequently interviewed on ten occasions in the course of that day between 11.35am and 11.07pm. At one interview, during which he made no admission of any kind, the applicant was attended by a social worker who was called because Billy W's solicitor observed to a policeman that the applicant was "a bit daft". Otherwise the applicant was on his own throughout the day and saw no one except a series of police officers. He had the benefit of no legal advice and it does not appear that the opportunity to consult a solicitor was offered until just before the last of the ten interviews, by which time full admissions had, according to the police, been made. He was not cautioned specifically in relation to the murder charge until that last interview, and was not charged with the crime of murder even during the interviews when he made admissions.
The first of the interviews took place between 11.35am and 11.55am on 15 November. In the course of that interview the applicant denied going to Abbey Drive on 4 November, but admitted leaving his house and stealing some tyres to put on a bonfire. On his admission of stealing the tyres he was cautioned in relation to theft. He said he had not mentioned going out that night when he had been asked before because he did not want to get into trouble for taking the tyres.
One of the officers made a brief note, taking up less than a page, in the course of that interview, but the questions and answers were expanded...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cannonier v The Director of Public Prosecutions; Isaac et Al v The Director of Public Prosecutions
...death penalty has long been abolished, appeals after a delay of 12 years are not unknown. In Ashley King's case ( R v. Ashley King [2000] 2 Cr. App. R. 391.) the appellant was convicted in 1986 of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. He sought leave to appeal over 12 1/2 years later. ......
-
Romeo Cannonier Appellant v DPP Respondent [ECSC]
...in this case. In England, where the death penalty has long been abolished, appeals after a delay of 12 years are not unknown. In Ashley King'scase17 the appellant was convicted in 1986 of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. He sought leave to appeal over 12 1/2 years later. Being sat......
-
Romeo Cannonier Appellant v DPP Respondent [ECSC]
...in this case. In England, where the death penalty has long been abolished, appeals after a delay of 12 years are not unknown. In Ashley King'scase17 the appellant was convicted in 1986 of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. He sought leave to appeal over 12 1/2 years later. Being sat......
-
Queen v Philip Blaney
...excluded changes effected by statute in his remarks relating to the 17 application of contemporary standards and in R v King [2000] 2 Criminal Appeal Reports 391 the same judge, in delivering the judgment of the Court of Appeal observed, at page 401/402: “We were invited by counsel at the o......
-
Don't Mention the War: The Court of Appeal, the Criminal Cases Review Commission and Dealing with the Past in Northern Ireland
...appeal was allowed solely because notranscript existed of the judgment.148 The NICA has overturned cases in which138 RvKing (Ashley) [2000] 2 Cr App R 391, 402 (emphasis added). The thrust of this part of thejudgment was approved by the NICA in RvGordon [2001] NIJB 50 and Mulholland n 131 a......
-
Table of Cases
.... . . 279R vKhela 2009 SCC4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243–245R vKhelawon [2006] 2SCR 787 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77R vKing [2000] 2Cr App R391 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93R vKneeshaw [1975] 1QB 57 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .316R vKwok Leung (1909)4 HKLR 161 . . . . . 214, ......
-
Usurping the Role of the Jury? Expert Evidence and Witness Credibility in English Criminal Trials
...INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EVIDENCE & PROOF 93EXPERT EVIDENCE AND WITNESS CREDIBILITY IN ENGLISH CRIMINAL TRIALS56 See, e.g., RvKing [2000] 2 Cr App R 391; Gudjonsson, above n. 14 at Part III.57 S. I. Friedland, ‘On Common Sense and the Evaluation of Witness Credibility’ (1990) 40 Case W Res ......