R v Lovesey
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE WIDGERY |
| Judgment Date | 13 May 1969 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1969] EWCA Crim J0513-1 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
| Docket Number | No. 3501/68 No. 3502/68 |
| Date | 13 May 1969 |
[1969] EWCA Crim J0513-1
Lord Justice Widgery
Lord Justice Karminski
and
Mr. Justice Geoffrey Lane
No. 3501/68
and
No. 3502/68
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
MR. C. LEWIS HAWSER, Q.C. and MR. K. WINSTAIN appeared on behalf of the Appellants.
MR. J. BUZZARD and MR. MANSFIELD appeared on behalf of the Crown.
These two appellants were convicted at the Central Criminal Court of robbery with violence (Count 1) and murder (Count 2). They were each sentenced to imprisonment for seven years and for life on the two counts respectively, and now appeal against their convictions for murder by leave of the full Court.
The victim was a jeweller, who was accustomed to open his lock-up shop at about 9.0 a.m. and who was normally alone in the shop until the arrival of his wife at about 9.10 a.m. On the 24th January 1968, he arrived at his shop at about 9.0 a.m., and when his wife found him some fifteen minutes later he was handcuffed to a railing in the basement of the premises and had suffered severe head injuries, from which he later died. Blood was found on the ground floor and on the stairs, the shop was in disorder and some cases of valuables had been removed. There was no direct evidence of how many men had been involved in the raid or of the parts which they had individually played.
The appellants denied all knowledge of the affair, but the prosecution sought to implicate them in the crime in a number of ways. Witnesses were called to prove a connection between the two appellants and a Jaguar car which was thought to have been used in the raid, and the victim's daughter gave evidence that Lovesey had visited the shop with a woman three months before. Evidence was also given that when the appellants were arrested the two halves of a torn envelope, which had come from the shop, were found in their respective pockets. The appellants made many complaints about this evidence, and the directions given by the trial Judge thereon, but these matters have all been disposed of in an earlier judgment of the Court, and all which now remains is the appellants' appeal against their convictions for murder, the ground of appeal being that the trial Judge failed to direct the jury to consider the two counts separately.
The learned Judge gave the jury an impeccable direction on the ingredients of the offence of robbery with violence and on the guilt of individuals who join in a common purpose to rob. He continued: "Then comes the second and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R v Singh et Al
...referring to the case of Exall the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) in the case of John Dennis Lovesey & Anthony Peterson, (1969) 53 Cr. App. R. 461 seemed by the clearest implication to take the proposition just stated for granted. That was a case where a jeweller was violently robbed ......
-
R v Stewart (Benjamin James)
...part of the joint enterprise. There is nothing in this which is inconsistent with the directions of Morland J. 31In Lovesey and Peterson 53 Cr App R 461, following Anderson and Morris and applying the 'Lane' formulation, the Court refused to substitute a verdict of manslaughter for an unsa......
- The State v Ramsingh
- R v Jogee
-
Unlawfulness’s Doctrinal and Normative Irrelevance to Complicity Liability
...23 Cr App R 170; RvSpraggett [1960] Crim LR 840; RvSmith [1963] 1 WLR 1200 at 1205–7; RvAnderson [1966] 2 QB 110 at 118–9; RvLovesey [1970] 1 QB 352; RvWan [1995] Crim LR 296; RvDunbar [1988] CrimLR 693.406 The Journal of Criminal Law significantly, this is borne out in the Three Soldiers C......
-
A Normative Case for Abolishing the Doctrine of Extended Joint Criminal Enterprise
...[1942] 42 SR (NSW) 278; R v Smith [1963] 1WLR 1200; R v Vandine [1970] 1 NSWR 252; Johns v The Queen [1980] 143 CLR 108; R v Lovesey [1970] 1 QB 352.28. R v Anderson and Morris [1966] 2 QB 110; R v McClafferty[1980] 11 NIJB; R v Dunbar [1988] Crim LR 693.29. See Sir Roger Tulson, ‘Sir Micha......
-
Lesser Included Offences, Alternative Offences and Accessorial Liability
...(1692) Holt KB 479. See also R v Skeet (1866) 4 Fost & F 931.40. (1692) Holt KB 479 at 480–1.41. (1955) 39 Cr App R 72.42. R v Lovesey [1970] 1 Q.B. 352 at 556 H.43. (1964) 48 Cr App R 6 at 10.44. Above n. 1 at If a person is a party to a violent attack on another, without an intent to assi......