R v Lunt
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE NEILL |
| Judgment Date | 28 November 1986 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1986] EWCA Crim J1128-3 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
| Date | 28 November 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 414/D/86 |
[1986] EWCA Crim J1128-3
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Lord Justice Neill
Mr. Justice Waterhouse
and
Mr. Justice Saville
No. 414/D/86
MR. ASPINALL appeared as Counsel on behalf of the Appellant.
MR. G. BEBB appeared as Counsel on behalf of the Crown.
On 17th December, 1985 in the Crown Court at Bournemouth the appellant, Kenneth Francis Lunt, was convicted of three offences involving the dishonest use of a stolen cheque book and cheque card. On count 2 of the indictment he was convicted of handling stolen goods, namely, the book and card. On count 4 he was convicted of forging a cheque for the payment of £44.91p. On count 5 he was convicted of using the same cheque with the intention of inducing Flicks Video Library to accept it as genuine. On each of these three counts the appellant was sentenced to terms of four years' imprisonment, which were ordered to be served concurrently. On the following day, 18th December, the sentences were varied under s.47 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 to concurrent terms of three years' imprisonment. The appellant has appealed against conviction by leave of the single judge.
On 31st May, 1985 a cheque book and a cheque card belonging to a Mrs. Susan Trow were stolen. At the subsequent trial of the appellant and other defendants it was alleged by the Crown that the appellant received the stolen cheque book and card and then passed them to his co-defendants, Samantha Bevis and Alyson Foreman, with instructions that they should forge cheques in the cheque book and use them to obtain goods for the appellant.
It was further alleged that in the period between Saturday, 15th June, 1985 and Tuesday, 18th June, the appellant, together with the two women, went to a number of shops and other premises in towns in Dorset and elsewhere and paid for goods and services by means of the forged cheques. The offences covered by counts 4 and 5" which related to a shop at Winton in Bournemouth, comprised, it was said, a single incident in a series of similar offences.
The evidence called on behalf of the Crown included the evidence of two police officers who interviewed the appellant on 24th June, 1985. The officers gave evidence to the effect that at the interview the appellant admitted that he bought the cheque books and cards for Samantha Bevis and Alyson Foreman, and that he did so "because they were going to give (him) some of the gear". He denied, however, that he had taken part in the forging of the cheques or in the obtaining of goods by the use of the cheques. In addition, the officers said that the appellant told them that he had had a few bottles of drink, a watch and a few video tapes which had been obtained by means of the cheques, and that he had to have some of the gear in order to pay for the book and card.
It is right to say that when the appellant gave evidence in the witness box at the trial he denied that he had made any of these admissions, that he had handled the stolen cheque book and card, or had taken any part in the forgery and passing of the cheques.
Shortly before the trial the Crown served on the appellant a notice of additional evidence which included a statement from Samantha Bevis. In her statement Samantha Bevis dealt not only with the occasion when a forged cheque was used for the purpose of obtaining goods from Flicks Video Library at Winton (the occasion covered by counts 4 and 5) but also with numerous other occasions between 15th June and 18th June 1985, when no less than 24 forged cheques from Mrs. Trow's cheque book were used for the purpose of obtaining goods and services.
At the outset of the trial it was submitted on behalf of the appellant that the evidence of Samantha Bevis relating to dealings with the cheques from the cheque book was inadmissible except in so far as it was confined to the offences alleged in counts 4 and 5. After hearing argument the judge rejected this submission. He gave the following ruling:
"I cannot see why, in order to show that he was the organiser behind the passage of the cheque on the occasion with which he is charged, it is not material to show that, on other occasions, he organised the forgery and passage of other cheques. I propose to allow this evidence to be given on that basis. The jury will have to be warned, and I will seek to warn them, that they are to consider the facts which support the particular count and they will have to consider the particular count, because it seems to me that this evidence is not inadmissible but it does form part of a system, course of conduct - call it what you will - and the prosecution are entitled to adduce it."
In this Court counsel for the appellant advanced three submissions: (1) that the evidence of Samantha Bevis relating to the passing of the 24 other cheques was not "similar fact" evidence, because it had no feature of true probative value which inculpated the appellant. Her evidence, it was said, was merely a narration of similar events; (2) that even if the evidence had some probative value, such value was plainly outweighed by its prejudicial effect; accordingly, the judge should have excluded the evidence as inadmissible; (3) that in any event this evidence should have been excluded because...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R v Shore
...of evidence has been before the courts on many occasions and was considered in detail by the House of Lords in Boardman (supra) in 1974. 65 In Lunt (1987) 85 Crim. App. Reps. 241 an attempt was made to draw together some of the authorities and to set out the resultant guidelines. At page 24......
- Joyce Warner Appellant v The Queen Respondent
-
R v Beggs
...judge to rule, in accordance with the laws of evidence, whether the evidence is admissible or not." 18 Applying Boardman and Scarrott in R v. Lunt (1987) 85 Cr App R 241, Neill LJ said (at page 244): "Having considered these authorities, we would venture to suggest that the following guidel......
-
Yaseen All E.R v The State
...- Admissibility — Similar fact evidence not led at preliminary inquiry — Principles governing admissibility of evidence — Guidelines in R. v. Lunt (1987) 85 Cr. App. R. applied. Bishop, J.A. 1 I concur in the order proposed by the Honourable Chancellor that the appeals should be allowed and......
-
Court of Appeal
...in R. v. Martin[1988]1W.L.R. 655 (notedat 53 J.C.L. 60).SIMILAR FACT EVIDENCE BY AN ACCOMPLICER. v.LuntThe appellant in R. v.Lunt(1986) 85 Cr.App.R. 241, was chargedwith offences in relation to the use of a stolen cheque book andcard.Itwas alleged that he had bought the book and card and63 ......
-
Law Reports, Transcripts, and the Fabric of the Criminal Law—A Speculation
...placeor that I committed no offence in the course of it? In each case I am saying that myaccuser is lying’ ([1975] AC 421 at 458). 37 (1986) 85 Cr App R 241. Lunt does not stand alone: see, e.g., the omnium passage in Kilner Brown J’s judgment in R v Butler (1986) 84 Cr App R 12 at 17,which......
-
Law Reports, Transcripts, and the Fabric of the Criminal Law —A Speculation
...took placeorthatIcommitted no offence inthecourse of it? In each case I am sayingthatmyaccuser is lying' ([1975) AC 421 at 458).37 (1986) 85 Cr App R 241.Luntdoesnotstand alone: see, e.g.,theomnium satherumpassage in Kilner Brown J'sjudgmentin RvButler (1986) 84 Cr App R 12 at 17,which also......