R v Loveridge (William)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD WOOLF CJ,MR JUSTICE DOUGLAS BROWN,MR JUSTICE ASTILL |
| Judgment Date | 11 April 2001 |
| Neutral Citation | [2001] EWCA Crim 973 |
| Docket Number | Case No: 00/1893/Y2 00/2086/Y2 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
| Date | 11 April 2001 |
Lord Chief Justice of England & Wales
Mr Justice Douglas Brown and
Mr Justice Astill
Case No: 00/1893/Y2
00/2012/Y2
00/2086/Y2
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Mr Martyn Levett (appeared for) William Loveridge
Mr Roderick Hunt (appeared for) Charles Sonny Lee
Mr Colin Aylott (appeared for) Christine Loveridge
Mr P Johnson (appeared for) the Respondent
On 9 March 2000 at the Crown Court at Teesside before His Hon. Judge Briggs, William Loveridge, Charles Sonny Lee and Christine Loveridge were convicted of robbery and taking a motor vehicle without consent. They were sentenced in the case of William Loveridge and Charles Lee to 12 years imprisonment for robbery and 3 months imprisonment concurrent for taking a motor vehicle and in the case of Christine Loveridge to 8 years imprisonment for robbery and 4 months imprisonment for taking a motor vehicle. Those sentences were to be concurrent.
They each applied for leave to appeal against their convictions. The single judge (Wright J) referred their applications to the full court in relation to some but not all their grounds of application for leave to appeal. In addition, both William Loveridge and Christine Loveridge renew their application for leave to appeal against sentence which was refused by the single judge. Lee was also refused leave to appeal against sentence but that application was not renewed and has now lapsed.
The principal issue raised by the applications for leave to appeal against conviction arises out of the fact that the police arranged for the Loveridge applicants to be filmed by a video camera, without their knowledge, while they were at a magistrates court. The purpose of this was to be able to compare those pictures with pictures which had been taken earlier by CCTV cameras, so as to connect the applicants with the robbery. The film which was taken at the court was admitted in evidence and it was used by an expert called by the Crown to establish that the Loveridge applicants are pictured on the video film taken by the CCTV cameras. In support of their contention that the evidence should not have been admitted the applicants rely upon their right to respect for their private life under Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR). They also rely on the fact that they were filmed at the court contrary to s41 of the Criminal Justice Act 1925 and Code D4.1 and D4.2 and s78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Although Charles Lee was not alleged to be shown on the footage taken from the CCTV cameras, he contends that if either of the Loveridge's convictions are set aside, his conviction should also be set aside because of his association at the trial by the prosecution with both of the Loveridge's.
The Facts
The robbery was carried out at around 2pm on 3 June 1999 at a sub-post office in the village of Kirklington, a small village approximately one mile to the west of the A1 between Masham and Thirsk. It was the prosecution's case that the two men concerned in the robbery were Lee and William Loveridge and they were assisted by Christine Loveridge, who is no relation to William Loveridge. A sub-post mistress, Mrs Miller, was working inside the shop when she heard the bell and saw two men wearing balaclavas pointing a gun at her. She was told to get on the floor and she felt what she thought was a gun pressing on her back. She was asked if there was anyone else there and she told them that her husband was upstairs. She gave one of the men the keys to the safe and the post office. Her husband was also confronted by a man who appeared to be carrying a sawn-off double-barrelled shotgun upstairs. The two men left the post office with just over £9,300.
Parked outside the sub-post office, while this was happening, was the motorcar of Mr and Mrs Pearson. They were waiting outside while their daughter went in to buy sweets. They noticed a parked Sierra motor car. The Pearson's saw two men come out of the sub-post office, with one of the men carrying a carrier bag. Notwithstanding that a gun was pointed at her by one of the men, Mrs Pearson ran inside the sub-post office to get her daughter. Mr Pearson was told "not to be a hero" but memorised part of the registration number of the Sierra as H816.
A maroon Ford Sierra H816 WFG had been parked at 11.30am the same morning near Thirsk Auction Market. When the driver returned at 3.30pm it had gone. At 1.45pm the car was seen by a witness, Mr Dennis, in Kirklington containing two men who were attempting to reverse out of a field. Close by the Sierra was a Ford Fiesta (H470 DTY) containing a woman. The prosecution allege that woman was Christine Loveridge. The witness had seen the Ford Fiesta early the same day at around 12.15pm when it was carrying a woman and two men. The witness and his wife became suspicious when the men appeared to try and conceal their faces so they noted down the registration number of the Ford Fiesta.
The Fiesta and its three occupants were seen on CCTV film at the Busby Stoop petrol station. It was also seen on separate CCTV video footage at Thirsk at 12.26pm the same day. It was the Crown's case that the applicants had visited the petrol station to purchase diesel for the Fiesta together with sweets and a milkshake.
It was also the prosecution's case that having committed the robbery, the two male applicants abandoned the Sierra in a field and met up with Christine Loveridge who was waiting with the Fiesta. A metal tray from the post office safe was found on the back seat of the Sierra. Clothing used in the robbery, a raincoat and grey jacket (that belonged to the owner of the Sierra and was in the car at the time it was stolen) were found discarded nearby, as was footwear.
Access to the same field was provided along Stapler Lane. The witness, Dennis, again saw the Fiesta at 2.17pm at the end of Stapler Lane.
AT 10.20pm the Fiesta was stopped by police and found to contain the male applicants. They initially gave false names. They were arrested and taken to a nearby police station and their clothing was seized.
Christine Loveridge was arrested on the 11 June 1999. Records from the prison where Lee had been detained showed that he had telephoned the address at which Christine Loveridge had been staying on four occasions, including twice on the morning she was arrested.
There is no dispute the robbery took place and the only issues are, were the men who stole the Sierra and committed the robbery, Lee and William Loveridge and did Christine Loveridge assist them to do this.
Fibres which matched the fibre of the shirt seized by the police from Lee and William Loveridge were found on the front passenger and driver seat of the Sierra. Similar fibres were found inside the raincoat and jacket that had been discarded in the Sierra. The Crown therefore alleged that these items had been worn by Lee and William Loveridge to cover their shirts during the robbery.
The police also searched the Fiesta and recovered a Cadbury's milkshake box. On it were the fingerprints of Christine Loveridge. This was significant because the woman on the Busby Stoop video footage appeared to have such a drink in her hand. A hairbrush which contained hairs similar, in colour and microscopic appearance, to those of Christine Loveridge and an address book belonging to Lee, with fingerprints of Christine Loveridge on it, were also found. In the ashtray was a cigarette stub which DNA evidence linked with William Loveridge. Fingerprints of all three applicants were found in the Fiesta. In addition, a carrier bag identical to the one belonging to the owner of the Sierra when it was stolen, was found in the drivers door pocket of the Fiesta.
A video camera used at the service station at White Mare Pool showed that Christine Loveridge had called at the garage on a number of occasions one day in May including once with William Loveridge's wife. She had said that she had not spent any time in the Northeast and did not know White Mare Pool. In addition a call was made from the service station to where Christine Loveridge's mother lived. William Loveridge was also seen on the video on the same day.
The Crown called Mr Oxlee, an expert in facial mapping. He compared the appearance of a man on the video footage taken at Busby Stoop and White Mare Pool service stations with the footage obtained of the applicants at the magistrate's court. He said there was no significant differences and seven characteristic features of similarity between the man in the footage at both service stations and the face of William Loveridge. He also examined the same footage in respect of Christine Loveridge and concluded there was also no significant differences and nine characteristic features of similarity between the woman in the film footage at both service stations and the face of Christine Loveridge.
At the trial it was argued by Mr Hunt on behalf of Lee, supported by the other applicants, that the video and photographic evidence taken at the magistrates court with a view to the images being examined by the imaging expert on behalf of the Crown should not have been admitted in evidence. The applicants had expressed a willingness to stand on an identification parade but had been told there would be no identification procedures.
The judge overruled the applicants submissions and allowed the evidence to be given. He did, however, consider that the video pictures taken at the magistrates court did...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Theakston v Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd
...taken of people without their consent and the extent to which that is an interference with their private lives. In R v Loveridge (2001) EWCA Crim 973 Lord Woolf CJ said: "… in any event secret filming in a place to which the public has free access can amount to an infringement even where th......
-
Good Law Project Ltd v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care
...of photographs in court and on the publication of such photographs. This prohibition extends to video recordings: R v Loveridge [2001] EWCA Crim 973, [2001] 2 Cr App R 29. Exceptions have been provided by and under statute. None applies to proceedings in the Administrative Court. Section 41......
-
Jones v University of Warwick
... ... will even consider whether there has been an abuse of process of a gravity which requires the prosecution to be brought to a halt (see R v William Loveridge & Others [2001] 2 CAR 29 and R v Mason & Others [2002] 2 CAR 38 (paragraph 50, 68 and 76). In civil proceedings, as Potter LJ ... ...
-
Jamaica Teachers' Association v Marlon Francis and Others
...whether there has been an abuse of process of a gravity which requires the prosecution to be brought to a halt (see R v Loveridge [2001] EWCA Crim 973 , [2001] 2 Cr App R 591 and R v Mason [2002] EWCA Crim 385 at [50], [68] and [76], [2002] 2 Cr App R 628 at [50], [68] and [76]). In civil ......
-
Table of Cases
.... . . . . . . . . 98R v Loosely [2001] UKHL 53, [2001]1 WLR 2060 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85R v Loveridge [2001] EWCA Crim 973,[2001] 2 Cr App R 29 . . . . . . . . . . . .79, 83, 203R v Luttrell [2004] EWCA Crim 1344 . . . . . . . 231R v Lynch (1978) 40 CCC (2d)......
-
Subject Index
...(No. 3 of 2000) [2001]UKHL 53, [2001] 1 WLR 2060....................................... 48, 49, 50, 51R v Loveridge [2001] EWCA Crim 973,[2001] 2 Cr App R 591 .....................47R v Lucas [1981] 3 WLR 120.............. 144R v Lyons [2001] EWCA Crim 2860,[2002] 2 Cr App R 210 .................
-
Improperly Obtained Evidence in the Commonwealth: Lessons for England and Wales?
...RvKhan [1996] 3 All ER 289;RvChalkley [1998] 2 All ER 155; RvSanghera [2001] 1 Cr App R 20 (p. 299); RvLoveridge [2001] EWCA Crim 973, [2001] 2 Cr App R 29 (p.591).17 Commentary on RvKhan [1995] QB 27 at [1994] Crim LR 832, quoting from RvSang[1980] AC 402 at436.18 See e.g. M. Hunter, ‘Judi......