R v Machado
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE THOMAS |
| Judgment Date | 02 March 2006 |
| Neutral Citation | [2006] EWCA Crim 837 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
| Docket Number | No: 2005/04132/D2 |
| Date | 02 March 2006 |
[2006] EWCA Crim 837
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL CRIMINAL DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
The Strand London WC2A 2LL
Lord Justice Thomas
Mr Justice Walker
Sir Richard Curtis
No: 2005/04132/D2
MR N WAYNE appeared on behalf of THE APPELLANT
MR A SHAW appeared on behalf THE CROWN
Thursday, 2nd March 2006
On 21 June 2005, at Peterborough Crown Court, before His Honour Judge O'Brien and a jury, the appellant was convicted of robbery and of having with him in a public place an article with a blade. He was sentenced to two years' imprisonment in respect of the robbery and to three months' imprisonment concurrent in respect of the possession of the bladed article. He was tried with two others: Teixeira, who was convicted of robbery, and Ramos, who was acquitted. The appellant appeals against conviction by leave of the single judge.
On the night of 5 February 2005, the alleged victim of the robbery, Rodney Hall, went into Peterborough for a friend's birthday. During the course of that evening he consumed four or five pints of lager. On his way home, at or shortly before 1.30am, he got into conversation with the appellant and the two co-defendants. They chatted to each other and the appellant left with them to walk home. Whilst walking home, the victim's evidence was that in St Peter's Arcade, Peterborough, he was aware of a bump to his head. He fell to the ground. As he started to get up, the three men walked away. He realised that he had been robbed and called the police. The time of that telephone call was 1.34am.
The police placed the victim in a van and, based on information received from the CCTV operator, drove to another part of town, where the victim identified the three offenders. When the police arrested them they found the victim's mobile phone on the appellant, who also had a knife with him with a locking blade. A top-up mobile phone card was found in the van which conveyed Ramos and the appellant to the police station. A wallet was found the following day in exactly the place where one of the accused, Ramos, had said it was, namely in a dustbin in the centre of Peterborough. Some correspondence, which had been in the victim's possession, was also found there.
In interview the appellant said that he became upset with something that the victim had said and had touched the victim's shoulder. The victim collapsed onto the ground. The appellant went to lift the victim off the ground as he did not know what had happened. The victim then ran off. (It is important to note that particular sentence.) The appellant saw the victim's mobile phone on the ground and picked it up so that he could return it to him.
The defence case at trial was that the appellant was from Portugal and had come to the United Kingdom in 2000. He was of previous good character. That evening he had gone to the centre of Peterborough and met Teixeira. He started drinking at about 10pm and had four or five beers. At some point he started talking to the victim. They then went towards St Peter's Arcade. He gave the same account in interview as he gave in his evidence at the trial as to what had happened in relation to the victim, as a result of the trial judge's ruling to which we will refer.
His account of having the knife on him when he was arrested was that he had it because he had been cleaning his nails that afternoon and had absent-mindedly closed the knife and put it into his pocket.
Teixeira's evidence at trial was that on the way home they saw the victim outside the HSBC Bank and asked him the time. They then walked over to St Peter's Arcade because they wanted to buy cigarettes. He was in the lead. He heard a bang and turned to see the victim on the ground with the appellant and Ramos next to him. The appellant helped the victim to his feet and he started to walk off. One of the others called out to him to say that his stuff was on the floor, but the victim nonetheless walked off.
Ramos gave a different account. His evidence was that Teixeira was his best friend. They had both gone together to Peterborough, where they had been joined in the course of the evening by the appellant. When he was together with the others, the victim joined them and started talking to them. There was then a conversation in Portuguese between the appellant and Teixeira, in which they said they were going to rob the victim. Ramos told them not to do so. He then saw the appellant kick the victim in the legs and he fell to the ground. He saw Teixeira and the appellant rob him. He saw Teixeira take the wallet and the appellant take the mobile phone.
The sole ground on which the single judge gave leave to appeal related to a ruling that the trial judge had made during the course of the trial. In the interview to which we have referred the full account of the appellant was that he had stated that the victim had offered to supply drugs to him. There was evidence from the victim in his statement that Teixeira had offered to supply drugs to him. Ramos also wanted to say the same in relation to Teixeira. The appellant also wished to assert that the victim had said he had taken an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Blaize Lunkulu, Christian Barabutu, Ndombasi Makusu, Yusef Arslan v R
...at any rate they were reasonably contemporaneous with and closely associated with its alleged facts (see for instance the reference to R v Machado noted towards the end of Archbold 13–6). 96 In R. v. Tirnaveanu [2007] EWCA Crim 1239; [2007] 2 Cr. App. R. 23 Thomas LJ gave the following a......
-
R v Tirnaveanu (Cornel)
...paragraph 19), the evidence �may be admissible without more ado�. 22. There is very little authority on the extent of this exclusion. In R v Machado [2006] EWCA Crim 1804, the defendant charged with robbing a victim wished to use evidence that the victim had taken an ecstasy tablet shortly ......
-
The State v Ken Foster
...the view that this narrow reading has nothing to commend it, however, and he suggests that it ought to be rejected. 2 14 The appellant in R v Machado 3 had been convicted of robbery; the victim had testified that he had been robbed while walking home in company of the appellant and others. ......
-
R v Tyler Joel Mullings and Others
...at any rate they were reasonably contemporaneous with and closely associated with its alleged facts (see for instance the reference to R v Machado noted towards the end of Archbold 13 —6).” In Machado [2006] EWCA Crim 837 the bad character in question was that of the complainant who, so the......
-
The Self-Incrimination Privilege in Care Proceedings and the Criminal Trial and ‘Shall Not Be Admissible in Evidence’
...regard to the proceedings before another tribunal’.77 In Rv Edwards [2005] EWCA Crim 3244, [2006] 1 WLR 1524 at [23].78 R v Machado [2006] EWCA Crim 837. See also R v W[2006] EWCA Crim 2308. InRv Saleem [2007] EWCA Crim 1923, some nexus in time was established.The Self-incrimination Privile......
-
Misconduct That ‘Has to Do with the Alleged Facts of the Offence with Which the Defendant is Charged’ … More or Less
...importance in the context of the case as a whole, or(c) all parties to the proceedings agree to the evidence being admissible.17 [2006] EWCA Crim 837, (2006) 170 JP 400.The Journal of Criminal that any evidence tending to show that H had taken drugs or offered tosupply them had to be exclud......
-
The Quick and the Dead: Who Counts as a ‘Person’ under S. 100 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003?
...solely with licit meansof proof and not with preserving any former expanded common-law connotation ofthe term ‘person’. 7 In Machado [2006] EWCA Crim 837 at [13] Thomas LJ indicated how s. 98(a) is be approached: ‘What [M] wished to give evidence of in this case . . . was evidencerelating t......
-
Court of Appeal
...the courts have focused on the temporal connection betweenthe evidence and the alleged commission of the offence. Thus, in R vMachado [2006] EWCA Crim 837, the appellant had been convicted ofrobbery and of having a bladed article in a public place. At trial, theappellant had wanted to quest......