R v Newton (Robert John)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE |
| Judgment Date | 07 December 1982 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1982] EWCA Crim J1207-1 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
| Docket Number | No. 782/B/82 |
| Date | 07 December 1982 |
[1982] EWCA Crim J1207-1
The Lord Chief Justice of England (Lord Lane)
Mr. Justice Talbot
and
Mr. Justice McCowan
No. 782/B/82
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
MR. A.W. PALMER, Q.C. and MR. R.S. HARPER appeared on behalf of the Appellant.
MR. D. SPENS appeared on behalf of the Crown.
On 1st February this year at the Central Criminal Court this appellant, Robert John Newton, who had earlier pleaded guilty to a charge of buggery with a woman on count 1 of the indictment, was sentenced to eight years' imprisonment.
He now appeals sgainst that sentence by leave of the single Judge.
The facts leading up to the sentence were somewhat out of the ordinary and will have to be set out in order that the case may be understood. It was on 6th January this year, before another Judge, Judge Underbill, that this appellant pleaded guilty to count 1 of the indictment and not guilty to count 2, which was a charge of assault occasioning actual bodily harm on the same victim, who was his wife. The prosecution were prepared to accept those pleas, but Judge Underhill took the view that, because of the sharp conflict between the prosecution's version of events and the defendant's version of events, there should be a trial on count 2, the assault charge. The case was therefore adjourned.
On 28th January this year, this time before Judge Argyle, the prosecution at first maintained their position, but Judge Argyle felt that it would be proper for a plea of not guilty to count 2 to be accepted and for this count to lie on the file. There were certain discussions which took place in Chambers, and Judge Argyle said that he proposed to consult Judge Underhill, a perfectly proper course for him to take. There were submissions, into which it is not necessary to go, but in the event that is in fact what happened, namely a plea of not guilty to count 2 was accepted to the extent that the matter was not to be tried but was to lie on the file upon the usual terms.
The conflict of versions between the two sides was this. The appellant and his wife were married in 1976 and it had been a stormy marriage which was, at the time these events happened, if not in the process of breaking up at least near to foundering. According to the wife what happened was this. On the evening of 24th September 1981 the appellant came home the worse for drink and demanded intercourse with her. She was not willing. He tried unsuccessfully to have intercourse, but could not achieve an erection. He then tried unsuccessfully to make her have oral sex with him. He had intercourse eventually by her sitting on top of him. According to her there was another attempt to have oral sex, but she ran out of the bedroom. He caught her when she got to the front door, and a large bruise which was eventually discovered upon her thigh she said was caused when he slammed the door upon her leg. According to her he then dragged her back into the flat, punched her on the head and kicked her. After that, under threats of further violence by him, she was compelled to undergo a series of sexual indignities: first of all he buggered her, then he inserted objects into her vagina. Then there was a second act of buggery, then he had ordinary intercourse through her vagina followed by oral sex, during the course of which, according to her, he ejaculated.
According to his version of events, sexual relationship between the two of them had always been slightly bizarre to ordinary ways of thinking, but that on the occasion in issue, she had consented to everything that had happened. She had certainly consented to the buggery which, according to him, she enjoyed. There was only one act of buggery, not two. There was no question of any assault or violence of any sort: there was nothing indeed to which she had not consented.
It was about as sharp a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McNulty v R
... ... v. Newton (2) and elaborated in subsequent 25 decisions. But there are ... ...
-
R v Bradley
...15, 2004. Mr Horwell contended that they applied to all trials and Newton hearings to decide disputes of fact on guilty pleas ((1982) 77 Cr App R 13) begun after December 15, 2004. Mr Bloomfield submitted that: (i) "criminal proceedings" in section 141 had an autonomous meaning, not governe......
-
R v Taylor (Andrew)
... ... the matter when there is such a divergence, the three methods being set out by this court in Newton ... 8 It should be stressed that if there is a divergence of which the prosecution ... ...
-
R v Abdulla Ahmed Ali and Others
... ... ii) The well known case of Newton (1983) 77 Cr App R 13 made clear the process by which a judge could resolve the factual dispute ... 45 Professor Sir John Smith commented in the Criminal Law Review [1976] Crim LR 631 : "Parties to a ... ...
-
Court of Appeal
...changed his plea to guilty. Hisplea was on a different factual basis than was acceptable to the Crownand thus a Newton hearing ((1982) 77 Cr App R 13) was held.When arrested by the police for an unconnected matter, Z was foundto be in possession of two bullets in the inside pocket of his ja......
-
Fair Labelling in Criminal Law
...at being50 Although theyremain available, to a limited extent, viathe mechanism of ^ in England ^ a Ne w-ton hearing (RvNewto n (1982) 77Cr App R13) or ^ in Scotland ^ aproof in mitigation (see R. M.White,‘What Happens After a Guilty Plea? A Gap in the Study of Crimi nal Procedure’ 1995JR46......
-
No bargains for guilty pleas: plea settlements in english law
...b! sa%d w%th !rta%"ty that th! judg! s!"t!" !d " th! bas%s f 1 ■ -89 th! pr s! ut% " p!"%"g. 87 Nam!d aft!r th! as! f Newton (1982) 77 Criminal Appeal Reports 13. Newton "t!mp*at!s tw pr !dur!s f r r!s *6%"g d%sput!s as t th! fa ts f th! ff!" ! th!r tha" tr%a* b!f r! jury: !%th!r th! judg! ......
-
The Right to a Newton Hearing
...more than 57 micrograms in hisbreath.At court the defendant pleaded guilty to the charge, but asked for aNewton hearing (R vNewton (1982) 77 Cr App R 13) to decide the levelof alcohol. The prosecution objected to this and stated that s. 15 of theRoad Traffic Act 1988 provided that the clai......
-
The Criminal Defence Service (Funding) (Amendment) Order 2007
...evidence is heard for the purpose of determining the sentence of a convicted person in accordance with the principles of R v Newton (1982) 77 Cr App R 13; “PPE Cut-off” means the minimum number of pages of prosecution evidence for use in calculating the fee payable to a litigator under this......
-
The Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013
...evidence is heard for the purpose of determining the sentence of a convicted person in accordance with the principles of R v Newton (1982) 77 Cr App R 13; “standard appearance” means an appearance by the trial advocate or substitute advocate in any of the following hearings which do not for......
-
Criminal Defence Service (Funding) Order 2001
...evidence is heard for the purpose of determining the sentence of a convicted person in accordance with the principles of R v Newton (1982) 77 Cr App R 13; “preparation” means work of any of the following types when done by a trial (a) reading the papers in the case; (b) the first conference......
-
The Criminal Defence Service (Funding) Order 2007
...evidence is heard for the purpose of determining the sentence of a convicted person in accordance with the principles of R v Newton (1982) 77 Cr App R 13; “standard appearance” means an appearance by the trial advocate or substitute advocate in any of the following hearings which do not for......