R v Middleton
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE EDMUND DAVIES |
| Judgment Date | 22 January 1974 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1974] EWCA Crim J0122-2 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
| Docket Number | No. 3428/B/73 |
| Date | 22 January 1974 |
[1974] EWCA Crim J0122-2
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Lord Justice Edmund Davies
Lord Justice James
and
Mr. Justice Boreham
No. 3428/B/73
MR. H. SINGER appeared as Counsel for the Appellant.
MR. R. G. MUNDY appeared as Counsel for the Crown.
This appeal of William Middleton against his conviction at Burnley Crown Court last June, together with a man named Berry, of handling by receiving, contrary to Section 22 of the Theft Act, comes before this Court by the leave of the single Judge.
The short facts are that on the 9th April, 1973 factory premises in Burnley were broken into and a quantity of suede leather clothing and other goods were stolen. The value was just under £900. Mrs. Birkett, who lived near the factory, said that on the 9th April Just before midnight she saw a man run from the factory to a green van which drove off at speed as soon as he entered it. She further gave evidence that some three weeks later she toured the district with two police officers and then indicated to them a green van similar to the one she had seen. It turned out to be owned by the co-accused Berry, a man who she identified in Court for the first time (and that point was understandably stressed by defence Counsel) "as being as near as possible" like the man she had seen running from the factory on the 9th April.
Mrs. Bentley said that at eight o'clock on the morning of the 10th April the Appellant, whom she already knew, and Berry, who had hitherto been a stranger to her, came to her house and the Appellant asked if he could store some goods there. She agreed and the two men then carried a number of leather coats and anoraks into the house and put them into her pantry. She said that later, because she felt "a bit nervous", she moved all the clothing into a bedroom upstairs and when she later met the Appellant at a public house she twice demanded that he remove all the goods. But on each of these two occasions, so she testified, he said he was unable to find anyone who would remove the goods, but promised that he would do his best to have them taken away.
She said that on Friday, 13th April when she saw this Appellant again at a public house and threatened to "dump" the goods if he did not collect them, he said to her: "Yes, dump them", but when she got back to her house later that evening she found that 'the law' had arrived in the shape of a police officer who was awaiting her arrival. In cross-examination she said she had been out with this Appellant on one occasion. He had also visited her home on a few occasions over a short period when he and her sister were going about together. Mrs. Bentley herself having been taken into custody, she said that during the three-and-a-half hours she was detained the police said nothing to her about the possibility of her children being put into care. She also denied another suggestion put by defence Counsel that it was she who had approached the Appellant in the first place and asked him if he could find a buyer for the goods which were already in her possession.
A Mr. Ratcliffe was living with Mrs. Bentley and he testified that he told the Appellant on several occasions to remove the goods from the house and that the Appellant had made the reply that he would do so as soon as a "fence" from Preston arrived. He also said that the Appellant on several occasions boasted that he was responsible for the actual burglary and went on to give details as to how it had been effected. He said there was no truth in the suggestion put to him in cross-examination that the goods were already in Mrs. Bentley's house and that the only roles of the Appellant and Berry were to seek a buyer.
When the Appellant and Berry were arrested they emphatically denied any involvement in the burglary, but when discussing the goods found at Mrs. Bentley's house it was said that the Appellant gave an evasive answer such as, "I am saying nothing at the moment" and a little later, "I can't say any more yet. I want to think about it." Berry, for his part, said: "I don't want to say anything about it. Just let me tell you that that girl June", that is Mrs. Bentley, "doesn't know anything about it. I can't tell you any more yet."
The police evidence was that when formally charged with burglary both the Appellant and Berry said, "Not guilty". But - and here comes the most important matter in relation to this appeal against conviction — it was said that when Berry's finger prints were being taken he said that he had been thinking matters over, that he had decided to tell the truth and admit that he and the Appellant had taken the goods to Mrs. Bentley's house and he said also: "I knew it was hot stuff, but what can you do when a mate wants a lift?" That was Berry, it must be emphasised, and not the Appellant.
What did the Appellant say when his finger prints were being taken? He did not say what Berry had said. But he was like Berry in that he also volunteered to tell the truth, whatever that was, but added that he first wished to have a word with Berry. The two men were then put into a cell together. A few minutes later when two officers entered the cell both men, after being cautioned, admitted that they had taken the property to Mrs. Bentley's house but insisted that they were not the burglars and had merely helped to "stash" the goods away for a man who promised to see them right later on. They each added that Mrs. Bentley had nothing at all to do with the "job".
The evidence for the Crown was also that this Appellant was alleged to have said that all the best clothing seemed to have disappeared from Mrs. Bentley's house and that he then offered to try and recover the missing property. The officers were challenged on that evidence and they insisted that it was both accurate and truthful and they had invented and added nothing to the replies which the two men had made. They also denied the suggestion that they had told the Appellant and Berry that, if they did not make a statement regarding their guilt and exculpating Mrs. Bentley, she would remain in custody and her three children would be placed in care.
The case for the defence was that the two men had spent the night of the 9th April at a public house and then went straight to their respective homes...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v Gobin; State v Griffith
...It may be that the existence of such cases is the support far the observation of Lord Justice Edmund Davies in William Middleton, (1974) 59 Cr. App. R. 18, at p. 22, that, whenever the admissibility of a confession is challenged, “in most cases a trial within a trial should ensue. “; and o......
-
People v Kelly (No. 2)
...The People (Attorney General) v. Manning (1954) 89 I.L.T.R. 155. 30 The Attorney-General v. McCabe [1927] I.R. 129. 31 R. v. Middleton [1975] Q.B. 191. 32 Director of Public Prosecutions v. Ping Lin [1976] A.C. 574. 33 The People (Attorney General) v. Byrne [1974] I.R. 1. 34 Watts v. Indian......
-
Tofilau v The Queen
...QCA 175 at [20]. 268R v Scofield (1988) 37 A Crim R 197. 269R v Bosman (1988) 50 SASR 365. 270R v Hurst [1958] VR 396. 271R v Middleton [1975] QB 191. 272 [2005] 1 SCR 27 at 40–41 [43], approving R v Hodgson [1998] 2 SCR 449 at 475 273 See note [265] above. 274 There are authorities against......
-
The State v Plowell
...which he has of excluding all statements which are prejudicial to an accused person. (See R. v. Roberts [1953] 2 All E.R. 340, and R. v. Middleton [1974] 2 All E.R. 1190.) 67 The existence of the issue of voluntariness, i.e., of admissibility, can never depend, as in a civil pleading, on wh......