R v Moran
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE LAWTON |
| Judgment Date | 02 April 1985 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1985] EWCA Crim J0402-2 |
| Date | 02 April 1985 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
| Docket Number | No. 7080/C/84 |
[1985] EWCA Crim J0402-2
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Lord Justice Lawton
and
Mr. Justice Cantley
No. 7080/C/84
MR. T. HARTLEY appeared on behalf of the Appellant.
On 11th September 1984 in the Crown Court at York this appellant was summarily found to be in contempt of court and was ordered by H.H. Judge Dean to be committed to prison for a term of 6 months. This term was to run consecutively to a total of 2½ years' imprisonment passed upon him at the same court on 5th April 1984 for offences of burglary and aggravated burglary. He now appeals as of right against the order committing him to prison for contempt. Section 13 of the Administration of Justice Act 1960 (as amended) gives this court power to reverse or vary the order or decision of the court below, and to make such other order as may be just.
On 5th April 1984 the appellant and a co-accused named Watling each pleaded guilty, amongst other matters, to the aggravated burglary of a dwelling house at Scarborough. Prior to his appearance on that date the appellant had made a detailed witness statement implicating in the offence a third man named David Jablonsky. Jablonsky was subsequently arrested and tried at the York Crown Court between 10th and 12th September 1984. He pleaded not guilty. The appellant was brought in custody from prison to give evidence for the prosecution. He was called on the second day of the trial (11th September) but refused to take the oath, stating that he did not want to give evidence. That was an event which experienced prosecuting counsel might have anticipated as likely to happen.
It has been the experience of this court over many years that when one man, who goes on a joint enterprise with others, is called upon by the prosecution to give evidence against his co-accused, he either refuses to give evidence or he proceeds in the witness box to do as much as he can to help his co-accused. In our opinion prosecutors should think very hard indeed before they call a fellow criminal to give evidence in the kind of situation which arose in this case. It is understandable that this man would not have wanted to give evidence against Jablonsky. After all, they might have ended up in the same prison or word might have got around the prison system that this man had given evidence against Jablonsky.
We now turn to the transcript of 11th September. When this man said he did not want to take the oath, the following interchange took place between him and the judge: "(Judge): You know you are in contempt of court by refusing to give evidence? You had better go back and think about it. You are doing two and a half years and I can add to that." Thereupon the appellant said: "You can ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R v Grant (Ras)
...should have applied. There are currently no procedural rules dealing with summary contempt, but over the years the courts, particularly in R v Moran 81 Cr App R 51, have established certain principles which should ordinarily be observed when dealing with contempt cases. These include that: ......
-
Wilkinson v S and another
...[2002] EWCA Crim 1328, [2003] 1 Cr App R 60. R v Hill [1986] Crim LR 457, CA. R v MacLeod (2000) Times, 20 December, CA. R v Moran (1985) 81 Cr App R 51, CA. R v Schot, R v Barclay [1997] 2 Cr App R 383, CA. R v Secretary of State for the Home Dept, ex p Stevens, R v Secretary of State for ......
-
Hammerton v Hammerton
...2 FCR 563, [2006] Fam 1, [2005] 3 WLR 1191, [2005] 2 FLR 967. R v Huggins [2007] EWCA Crim 732, [2007] 2 Cr App Rep 107. R v Moran (1985) 81 Cr App Rep 51, R v Mushtaq[2005] UKHL 25, [2005] 3 All ER 885, [2005] 1 WLR 1513. Saunders v UK (1996) 2 BHRC 358, ECt HR. AppealThe appellant, Willia......
-
R v Montgomery
...41 Finally, though again it is not a consideration which arises in this case, it has repeatedly been made clear (see for instance Phillips, Moran (1985) 81 Cr.App.R. 51 and Lewis (1993) 96 Cr.App.R. 412) that unless there are good reasons for dealing with the matter quickly, the question of......
-
Court of Appeal
...power of summary committal to prison for contempt wasdescribed by the Court of Appeal in R. v. Moran (1985) 81Cr.App.R.51 as"inmany ways Draconian".Itistherefore perhapsas well that section 13 of the Administration of Justice Act 1960(as amended) empowers the Court of Appeal to reverse or v......
-
Court of Appeal
...exercise itas he did. The Court of Appeal held that he acted with too greathaste and in contravention of what was said in R. v. Moran (1985)81Cr.App.R.51, where the virtues ofreftection were emphasised.There was also the question of whether the judge should havereconsidered his decision, wh......
-
Striking a Balance Between the Administration of Justice and Free Speech During the Live Broadcast of a Presidential Election Petition
...for urgency during summary contempt proceedings with the application of natural justice principles.4040See, for example, R v Moran (1985) 81 Cr App R 51, CA, (holding that the trial judge had acted too precipitately, had not given the contemnor an opportunity to apologise, and had not invit......