R v Munisamy
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE JAMES |
| Judgment Date | 07 February 1975 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1975] EWCA Crim J0207-6 |
| Docket Number | No. 3061/C/74 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
| Date | 07 February 1975 |
[1975] EWCA Crim J0207-6
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Lord Justice Scarman
Lord Justice James
and
Mr. Justice Bristow
No. 3061/C/74
THE APPLICANT was not present and was not represented.
This is yet another case where the Court has before it an application for leave to withdraw an abandonment of an appeal.
On 10th July last year at the Central Criminal Court, the applicant pleaded guilty to an offence of wounding. He was sentenced to eight months' imprisonment, and the Court made a compensation order in the sum of £250. On 29th July he applied for leave to appeal against both conviction and sentence. That against conviction was not effective, but that against sentence was supported by counsel's Opinion. On 11th September his application in respect of sentence was refused by the single Judge. On 2nd October the applicant lodged a notice on Form 14, notifying the Court that he has abandoned all proceedings in the Court. Then on 31st December last year he wrote to the Registrar asking for leave to withdraw his notice of abandonment.
The case is a somewhat unusual one. Clearly one of the matters in relation to sentence, which was of considerable concern to the applicant, was the fact that a compensation order in the amount I have mentioned had been made. The advice that he received from counsel did not deal with that aspect of the Court's order at all. There is a letter received by the Registrar from the solicitors then acting for the applicant, the third paragraph of which contains a reference to the compensation order, saying that the order was made "to be not more than £250 to be fixed by magistrates". That clearly was unlikely to have been the form of the order of the Court. As a result of that letter, inquiries were made by the Registrar, and it was found the compensation order was in fact in its proper form.
Inquiries of the solicitors also revealed that they did not give the applicant any advice whatsoever in respect of his application in so far as it referred to the compensation order, but the basis of the advice that was tendered was that, having regard to the passage of some months, he had served so much of his sentence that it was perhaps not worthwhile pursuing the application. It is in those circumstances that the applicant, having now served his custodial sentence, points out to the Court the difficulties in which he is placed in relation to the compensation order.
The Court, being faced with repeated applications of this kind, will wish to bear in mind that which was said by the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Goddard, in R. v. Moore 41 Criminal Appeal Reports 179 at page 180: "An examination of the cases has shown that the court has allowed notice of abandonment to be withdrawn...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R v Medway
..."misapprehension that he would be pursuing a purposeless appeal" – "a complete misapprehension which was in no way his fault". 87 Munisamy (1975) 1 All England Reports 910 Lord Justice Scarman Lord Justice James and Mr. Justice Bristow. Lord Goddard in Moore (supra) and Lord Justice Winn ......
-
Yong Vui Kong v PP
...[2004] EWCA Crim 2826 (refd) R v Joseph Douglas Peters (1974) 58 Cr App R 328 (refd) R v Medway [1976] QB 779 (refd) R v Munisamy [1975] 1 All ER 910 (refd) Reyes v R [2002] 2 AC 235 (refd) Veerasingam v PP [1958] MLJ 76 (refd) Vignes s/o Mourthi v PP [2003] 4 SLR (R) 300; [2003] 4 SLR 300 ......
-
Yong Vui Kong v Public Prosecutor
...in withdrawing his appeal he had made a fundamental mistake in the context of the decision in Medway and emphasised in R v Munisamy [1975] 1 All ER 910. In our view, since the right to life and equal protection of the law are fundamental rights under Arts 9(1) and 12(1) of the Constitution ......
-
Lloyd Cole v R
...by some legal adviser, which has resulted in an unintended, ill-considered decision, to abandon the appeal.’ 40 Then, inR v Munisamy [1975] 1 All ER 910 [1975] 1 All ER 910, explaining Winn LJ's dictum quoted above, James LJ said this (at page 912): ‘But we do not think that Winn LJ was ref......