R v Moran

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
CourtCourt of Appeal (Criminal Division)
Judgment Date02 April 1985
Judgment citation (vLex)[1985] EWCA Crim J0402-2
Date02 April 1985
Docket NumberNo. 7080/C/84

[1985] EWCA Crim J0402-2



Royal Courts of Justice


Lord Justice Lawton


Mr. Justice Cantley

No. 7080/C/84

Kevin John Moran

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
19 cases
  • R v Grant (Ras)
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
    • 2 February 2010
    ...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: ......
  • Alan Wilkinson and Lord Chancellor's Department and official Solicitor
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 4 February 2003
    ......In Moran (1985) Cr App R 51 , a prisoner serving a sentence for burglary was sentenced to a further six months for refusing to give evidence against a person implicated in the same offence. The Court of Appeal stated, at p 53a-e: "These situations are always difficult for judges to deal ......
  • Hammerton v Hammerton
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 12 April 2007
    ...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......
  • Wilkinson v S and another
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • Invalid date
    ...[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 ......
  • 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