R v Nowaz
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE JAMES |
| Judgment Date | 13 April 1976 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1976] EWCA Crim J0413-2 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
| Docket Number | No. 1396/R/76 |
| Date | 13 April 1976 |
[1976] EWCA Crim J0413-2
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Lord Justice James
Mr. Justice Michael Davies
and
Mr. Justice Jupp
No. 1396/R/76
MR. G. YAZDANI appeared for the Applicant.
MR. D.J. PARRER appeared for the Crown
This is an application for leave to appeal against conviction. It is somewhat unusual in that it has been brought on for hearing before a transcript of the proceedings and in particular of the argument, made on a submission by learned counsel, has been made available to the Court.
The reason for that is that on the 26th February, of this year, at Derby Grown Court the Applicant, Gul Nowaz, who also calls himself Abdul Karim, was convicted of making a false decoration contrary to section 5(a) of the Perjury Act and was sentenced to six months' imprisonment. If we waited for the transcript to be received by the Court, having regard to the difficulties in transcribing long cases - and this was a long case - the sentence would have been fully served and, in the particular circumstances of this case, there would be difficulties in relation to any application for bail meanwhile. Fortunately, however, the application is based upon what is a short point as to the admissibility of certain evidence, and we have had the advantage of having the argument put before us by Mr. Yazdani, who was at the trial conducting the defence for the Applicant.
The charge preferred against the Applicant, of which he was convicted, was that on the 6th May, 1974, he willfully made a false statement in an application for registration as a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies under the British Nationality Act, 1948. The defence put forward by the Applicant was that the statement he made, which he admitted he had made, was not false. The statement which was alleged to be false was that he was the person Abdul Karinu His defence was "I am Abdul Karim."
The prosecution sought to establish the charge that had been preferred by evidence of different sorts. There was some fingerprint evidence on a document; there was evidence of a person in a managerial capacity at a place of employment in Derby where, it was said by the Applicant, he had previously been employed, who said "that is not the man" there was evidence given by a police officer, a Detective Constable, in relation to a document that was produced, namely a photograph, and in addition the contents of an application for a passport which had been submitted to the Pakistani Consulate at Bradford.
It is in respect of that last mentioned type of evidence that was put before the jury that the point has been taken in this application. It is common ground between the Applicant and the Crown that if the evidence of the police officer was wrongly admitted - was inadmissible evidence - then this conviction cannot stand. If, on the other hand, it was admissible evidence then there is no irregularity, misdirection as to law or any aspect rendering the verdict of the jury unsafe or unsatisfactory that can be relied upon by the Applicant as a ground for quashing the conviction.
The position was this. On the 23rd April of 1975, the Detective Constable, named Kilbane, visited the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Shearson Lehman Brothers Inc. v Maclaine Watson & Company Ltd (No. 2)
...evidence in the shape of the document, and secondary evidence given by someone who speaks to its existence or contents. R. v. NowazWLR [1976] 1 W.L.R. 830 is no authority for the contrary view, since the archival invulnerability of the passport application was not raised in argument, and in......
- Outar v The State
-
Outar v The State
...with what the lord Chief Justice declared [See 0. 1 r. 11 of our Court of Appeal Rules, Cap. 3:01.] 12 But I think the criminal appeal of Reg. v. Nowaz, [1976] 1 W.L.R 830, C.A. is very apposite, illustrating as it does that it is quite permissible for us to proceed, if the interests of ju......
-
Masquerade Music Ltd and Others v Mr Bruce Springsteen
...prefer to concentrate my attention on the more recent cases. I was referred by one party or the other to Garton v. Hunter [1969] 2 QB 37; R. v. Nowaz [1976] 3 All ER 5; R. v. Wayte (1983) 76 Cr. App. Rep. 110; and R. v. Governor of Pentonville Prison, ex parte Osman [1990] 1 WLR 277 at 3......