R v Ludlow
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE SALMON |
| Judgment Date | 15 July 1969 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1969] EWCA Crim J0715-1 |
| Docket Number | No. 8491/68 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
| Date | 15 July 1969 |
[1969] EWCA Crim J0715-1
Lord Justice Salmon
Lord Justice Megaw
and
Mr. Justice O'Connor
No. 8491/68
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
MR. RONALD GREY appeared on behalf of the Appellant.
MR. M. HILL appeared on behalf of the Crown.
On 6th December, 1968 the Appellant was convicted at the Central Criminal Court of attempted larceny and robbery with violence. He was sentenced to consecutive terms of six months and eighteen months' imprisonment. He now appeals against those convictions. The facts can be shortly stated.
As to the count of attempted larceny: On the evening of 20th August, 1968 at the Windmill Public House in Acton the Appellant was seen by a barman emerging from a window of the staff room which had been left open. The barman asked him what he was doing. He did not reply but his companion, who was standing outside the window, said "You're wasting your time, there's nothing in there worth pinching". The barman went into the staff room and found all the drawers left open and other indications of a search having been made. Earlier in the evening he had visited the room and found nothing disturbed. The barman called the Police, but when they arrived the Appellant had disappeared. On the 5th September the barman identified him to the Police. When he was questioned by the Police, he said "He can say what he likes. My mates will fix him". He admitted that he had been to the private part of the public house on the 20th August, but denied that he had done anything there. When the Appellant gave evidence he denied that the barman had seen him emerging from the window, and suggested that it was his companion, and not he, who had been inside the private part of the public house, and that he had remained outside. He tried to explain his admission to the Police that he had been inside the private part of the public house by saying that he had been referring to the garden. On the evening of the 20th August, however, the garden had been open to the public and was being used as a Beer Garden. The Appellant's story was obviously very thin. There was strong evidence which clearly the Jury accepted that the Appellant had attempted to steal.
As to the count of robbery: On the 5th September, 1968 the Appellant and two others were drinking in the Prince of Wales Public House in Acton where they remained for about two hours. Prior to 2.55 p.m., the Appellant had ordered a number of rounds of drinks for the three of them and paid on each occasion. Finally, at about 2.55 p.m., he ordered and was supplied with three more rums. When the relief manager, Puller, asked the Appellant to pay for these drinks the Appellant refused saying "You'll have to chase me if you want paying for these". He then walked out of the public bar. Fuller followed him and threatened to call the Police unless the Appellant paid him for the three rums. The Appellant then produced a 10/- note and as he handed it to Fuller said "I will only pay for my bloody drink". Fuller went over to the till and rang up 9/9d., the price of the three drinks owed to him by the Appellant. The Appellant then got behind the counter and said "I will break a bloody bottle if you charge me". Fuller told him to get back to the public side of the counter, whereupon the Appellant snatched the 10/- from Fuller's hand and punched him in the face, breaking his glasses and cutting his face below the left eye and knocking a tooth out in doing so. He then ran away. The Appellant stated in the witness box that he had only ordered one drink, that he should only have been asked to pay 3/3d. for that drink, and that when he saw 9/9d. registered on the till he considered himself entitled to recover the 10/- note. He admitted he was wrong in using violence.
The first point that arises for consideration is as to whether a count for attempted larceny can properly be joined with a count for robbery. This depends upon the true construction of the Indictments Act, 1915 Schedule 1 rule 3, which insofar as it is material reads as follows: "Charges for any offences…·.may be joined in the same indictment if those charges……form or are a part of a series of offences of the same or a similar character". The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
DPP v Nevin
... ... PARTE TELEGRAPH PLC 1994 98 CAR 91 1993 1 WLR 980 CRIMINAL JUSTICE (ADMINISTRATION) ACT 1924 SCH 1 RULE 3 INDICTMENT (PROCEDURE) RULES 1971 RULE 9 (UK) INDICTMENT ACT 1915 SCH 1 RULE 3 (UK) R V BARRELL & WILSON 1979 69 CAR 250 R V BAIRD 97 CAR 308 LUDLOW V METROPOLITAN POLICE CMSR 1971 AC 29 CRIMINAL JUSTICE (ADMINISTRATION) ACT 1924 S6(3) INDICTMENT ACT 1915 S5(3) (UK) DPP, PEOPLE V B(K) 2000 2 IR 199 AG V MARTIN JOYCE & WALSH 1929 IR 526 R V BOND 1906 2 KB 389 R V HAGAN 1873 12 COX CC 357 R ... ...
-
DPP v K (B)
... ... Harris v. Director of Public Prosecutions [1952] A.C. 694; [1952] 1 All E.R. 1044. Makin v. Attorney-General for New South Wales [1894] A.C. 57. Reg. v. Boardman [1975] A.C. 421; [1974] 3 W.L.R. 673; [1974] 2 All E.R. 958. Reg. v. Ludlow [1971] A.C. 29. Rex. v. Sims [1946] 1 K.B. 531; [1946] 1 All E.R. 697. R. v. Huijser [1988] 1 N.Z.L.R. 577. The People (Attorney General) v. Thornton [1952] I.R. 91. Criminal law - Evidence - Similar fact evidence - System evidence - ... ...
- R v Baird
-
R v Ferrell
... ... The Court of Appeal held that they are. The question is whether it was correct to do so ... 8 The Court of Appeal referred to the decision of the English Court of Appeal Criminal Division in Kray (1969) 53 Crim App R 569 and to that of the House of Lords in Ludlow v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1971] AC 29. It then summarised the relevant principles as set out in the 2009 edition of Archbold. The principles are now set out in the 2010 edition, which includes the following at para 1-158: "The fact that evidence in relation to one count was not ... ...