R v Morais

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
JudgeTHE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE
Judgment Date08 March 1988
Neutral Citation[1988] EWCA Crim J0308-14
Docket NumberNo. 7233/E1/87
CourtCourt of Appeal (Criminal Division)
Date08 March 1988

[1988] EWCA Crim J0308-14

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

CRIMINAL DIVISION

Royal Courts of Justice

Before:

The Lord Chief Justice of England (Lord Lane)

Mr. Justice McCowan

and

Mr. Justice Pill

No. 7233/E1/87

Regina
and
Carlton Morais

MR. P. WALLER appeared on behalf of the Appellant.

MR. D. MUNRO-KERR appeared on behalf of the Crown.

THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE
1

On 10th November last year in the Crown Court at Snaresbrook, this appellant, Carlton Morais, was convicted on a majority verdict of a jury and was sentenced as follows. Counts 1 and 2, supplying a Class A drug to a woman called Sophia Georgiou, in respect of which he was sentenced to three years' imprisonment on each count to run concurrently; count 3, conspiracy to supply a Class A drug to persons unknown, count 4, possessing a Class A drug with intent to supply, which was 15½ grammes of heroin, in respect of which he was sentenced to four years' imprisonment on each to run concurrently with each other and also with the three years on the other counts. So the total was four years' imprisonment. There was an order for the destruction of certain drugs and apparatus and also for the forfeiture of a small amount of cash. Count 5, which charged possession of Class A drugs as an alternative to count was ordered to lie on the file, and on count 6, which was a count of possessing a Class B drug, cannabis, he was acquitted by direction of the Court.

2

He now appeals against conviction on the simple ground that the trial was invalid: the trial was invalid because the indictment was invalid, the bill of indictment not having been signed by the proper officer. It was conceded that the bill of indictment was not so signed.

3

We have been helpfully provided with a chronology of the events leading up to this trial by Mr. Waller, who appears on behalf of the appellant, and it is important that we should make that chronology clear. It is as follows.

4

On 21st October 1986 the appellant was arrested at the home of Sophia Georgiou, who was for a time at least his co-defendant. Two hours later his own home was searched. On the next day, 22nd October, he was charged with the possession of a Class A drug, heroin, and also being concerned in supplying. On 27th November Sophia Georgiou was committed for trial on charges of possession of heroin with intent. On 19th December 1986 the appellant was committed for trial at the Highbury Corner Magistrates' Court on one charge of possessing heroin, and was granted bail.

5

In January and February 1987 an indictment was preferred and signed against the appellant containing two counts: one for possession and one for being concerned in the supply of heroin to Mrs. Georgiou. That was a count, so it was contended successfully later, which was not supported by the evidence on the depositions, and it was said, we are told by Mr. Waller, that that had been included in the indictment in error.

6

On 19th February 1987 a joint indictment against both the appellant and Mrs. Georgiou was preferred and signed. That indictment consolidated the individual indictment laid against each of them. It charged this appellant with unlawful possession and supplying. Everything up to that point was properly completed, except possibly the second charge against the appellant, which may not have arisen, as already indicated, from the evidence before the committing Justices.

7

On 4th August 1987 the appellant and Georgiou were arraigned on a joint indictment. The appellant pleaded not guilty to counts 1 and 2. There was an application to quash count 2, which was adjourned to be dealt with by the trial Judge. Mrs. Georgiou pleaded to count 3, a plea which was accepted by the prosecution, and the case was stood out then for the prosecution to obtain from Mrs. Georgiou and serve a statement, because she had indicated she was prepared to give evidence on the trial of this appellant. The appellant was then remanded in custody, his bail being withdrawn.

8

On 23rd September 1987 Mr. Justice Roch gave leave to the prosecution to prefer a voluntary bill of indictment. That was required because it was necessary to proceed against this appellant for offences of supplying drugs to Mrs. Georgiou, and there was no evidence, as I say, on the committal papers to support that charge. The charges laid in the bill in fact went rather further than was necessary.

9

Looking at the photostat copy of the bill of indictment, in manuscript on the top right hand corner of the first page someone has written: "Cor. The Honourable Mr. Justice Roch". Underneath in the Judge's handwriting: "Leave to prefer", the initials of the Judge: "J.R." and in his handwriting too "23.9.87", and underneath in the original handwriting, "A Justice of the High Court".

10

The next incident was on 4th November 1987, when the case was listed for trial. It was adjourned to the following day, because Mrs. Georgiou had not put in an appearance, and they could not proceed without her evidence.

11

On 5th November the appellant was arraigned on the voluntary bill on six counts. He pleaded not guilty to all the counts. There was an application to quash the earlier indictments, which was deferred to be dealt with at the end of the trial. The trial then began and continued on the 6th, 9th and 10th November, with the result which we have already explained. At the end of it all the individual indictments and counts 1 and 2 of the joint indictment, were quashed.

12

Mr. Waller's argument is simple and put plainly is in effect, 'no signature no indictment, and no indictment, trial invalid'. He bases that simple submission primarily upon the provisions of the Administration of Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1933.

13

He draws our attention, properly, in the first instance to the preamble to that Act, which, in so far as it is material, reads as follows: "An Act to abolish grand juries and amend the law as to the presentment of indictments…..".

14

Sec ion 2, which is the section which governs this particular appeal, runs as follows:

15

"Procedure for indictment of offenders. (1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a bill of indictment charging any person with an indictable offence may be preferred by any person before a court in which the person charged may lawfully be indicted for that offence, and where a bill of indictment has been so preferred the proper officer of the court shall, if he is satisfied that the requirements of the next following subsection have been complied with, sign the bill, and it shall thereupon become an indictment and be proceeded with accordingly

16

"Provided that if the judge …. of the court is satisfied that the said requirements have been complied with, he may, on the application of the prosecutor or of his own motion, direct the proper officer [of the court] sign the bill and the bill shall be signed accordingly.

  • "(2) Subject as hereinafter provided no bill of indictment charging any person with an indictable offence shall be preferred unless either – (a) the person charged has been committed for trial for the offence; or (b) the bill is preferred by the direction or with the consent of a judge of the High Court……".

17

Mr. Waller submits that the words are clear, namely, "it shall thereupon become an indictment" after the proper officer has signed the bill. His contention is, if the proper officer has not signed the bill, it does not become an indictment, and the rest follows.

18

He draws a little assistance from a judgment of this Court in the case of George David Hodges (unreported), decided by another...

To continue reading

Request your trial
20 cases
  • R v Jackson
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
    • May 20, 1998
    ... ... One important distinction from Morais was that in the present case, before arraignment on the fresh indictments, the judge had exercised the discretion granted to him as the trial judge by the proviso to section 2(1) of the Administration of Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1933 and of his own motion had directed in open court ... ...
  • R v Clarke (Ronald Augustus) and McDaid
    • United Kingdom
    • House of Lords
    • February 6, 2008
    ...appellant having pleaded guilty, his appeal was allowed and his conviction quashed. 9 The authority closest on its facts to the present is R v Morais (1988) 87 Cr App R 9. A High Court judge had given leave to prefer a voluntary bill against the appellant, who was arraigned on six counts in......
  • R v Keith Anthony Stocker
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
    • November 13, 2013
    ...renders any subsequent trial a "nullity": R v Thompson and Clein [1978] 1 WLR 1425; R v Cairns (1983) 87 Cr App R 287; R v Morais (1988) 87 Cr App R 9; R v Newland [1988] QB 402. 75. In R v Morais, the Court of Appeal quashed the appellant's conviction for supplying drugs and ordered a retr......
  • R v Ashton; R v Draz; R v O'Reilly
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
    • April 5, 2006
    ...a valid indictment renders any subsequent trial a "nullity": R v Thompson and Clein [1978] 1 WLR 1425; R v Cairns (1983) 87 Cr App R 287; R v Morais (1988) 87 Cr App R 9; R v Newland [1988] QB 402. 75 In R v Morais, the Court of Appeal quashed the appellant's conviction for supplying drugs ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT