R v Palin

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
JudgeMR. JUSTICE LAWTON
Judgment Date30 June 1969
Judgment citation (vLex)[1969] EWCA Crim J0630-8
CourtCourt of Appeal (Criminal Division)
Docket NumberNo. 851/69
Date30 June 1969

[1969] EWCA Crim J0630-8

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

CRIMINAL DIVISION

Royal Courts of Justice

Before:

Lord Justice Sachs

Lord Justice Karminski

and

Mr. Justice Lawton

No. 851/69

Regina
and
William Richard Palin

MR. C. ODDIE appeared as Counsel for the Appellant.

MR. F. L. CLARK appeared as Counsel for the Crown.

MR. JUSTICE LAWTON
1

This appellant, William Richard Palin, on 9th January, 1969, at Oxford City Quarter Sessions was found guilty on an indictment containing counts of indecent assault on male persons. The first count charged him with indecently assaulting a boy called David Worrall, who was aged 11. The second count charged him with indecently assaulting David Worrall's brother, Phillip, aged 9. The third and fourth counts charged him with indecently assaulting a boy called Joseph English, aged, on the occasion of the first assault, 14, and of the second assault, 15. He now appeals to this Court by leave of the single Judge.

2

His first ground of appeal as put before the Court by his learned Counsel, Mr. Oddie, relates to all the counts in the indictment and it comes to this' that during the course of the trial one of the witnesses, a boy called Calway, in the course of his evidence made one reference to the appellant having to go to court and two references to the appellant going to prison. For the purposes of this judgment it is right that I should call attention to the words which actually came out in the course of Calway's evidence. He was asked this question:

"Was there anybody else doing any kissing besides the accused and English on that occasion? A. When we got back to Blackbird Lees Palin said, 'I have got to go to court.'"

3

A little later in his evidence, whilst being cross-examined he was asked by Mr. Oddie this question;

"What you are saying is that he had given you ten shillings in the morning and eventually in the evening you did kiss him? A. It was that evening that he kissed me and he said, 'If I don't go into prison tomorrow you can do something for it.'"

4

Still later in his cross-examination Mr. Oddie said:

"Are you saying there came a time when you did not want to go on seeing Palin? A. Yes, when he went into prison.'"

5

Following that answer Mr. Oddie asked the Assistant Recorder to discharge the jury. The Assistant Recorder ruled that the jury should not be discharged and he directed that the trial should go on.

6

Mr. Oddie conceded before us that the learned Assistant Recorder had a discretion but he submitted that in the circumstances of this case the learned Assistant Recorder exercised his discretion wrongly. The basis of his argument was that the appellant was putting forward a difficult defence, to wit, that although he had homosexual inclinations he had not given way to them during his association with the three boys whose names appeared in the indictment. He submitted that anything which tended to hamper the appellant in putting forward his defence was something which should have been taken into consideration when the Assistant Recorder came to exercise his discretion.

7

The Court has come to the conclusion that the Assistant Recorder did exercise his discretion properly. There is nothing to indicate that he exercised it on wrong principles. Indeed the short ruling that he gave indicates that he exercised it on right principles. So there is nothing in that ground of appeal.

8

Before the Court leaves that ground of appeal it would like to call attention to the way in which this matter was dealt with before us. Mr. Oddie, following the practice of members of the Bar over many years, called our attention to the case of R. -v- Peckham, which is reported in the Criminal Appeal Reports Volume 25 at page 125. In particular he relied upon the passage in the judgment of the then Lord Chief Justice, Lord Hewart, which appears at page 128. This passage has been cited to courts time and time again in support of the proposition that courts ought almost invariably to discharge juries when matters of the kind which came out in the course of this case come out in the course of a trial. There must have been many prisoners over the years who have had juries discharged, perhaps to their advantage, perhaps otherwise, as a result of having that passage cited to courts. A full consideration of the report, however, shows that that court reminded itself that all cases of this kind have to be decided on their own facts. This Court, which is the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal and therefore a superior court to the Court of Criminal Appeal, reviewed all the authorities in the case of R. -v- Weaver, which is reported in the Criminal Appeal Reports 1967 Volume 51 at page 77. It is pertinent to point out that on that occasion the Court was made up of judges with extensive circuit experience. The Court reviewed all the authorities in the light of the experience of the Court and it gave a definitive judgment as to what was the law with regard to this matter. I invite attention to the following passage in the judgment delivered by Lord Justice Sachs at page 82:

"Then one comes to the final question: is there anything in this case, as put forward so persuasively by Mr. Alliott, to induce the court to say that the discretion of the Deputy Chairman was wrongly executed when he declined to discharge the jury? Cases parallel to the present one have been brought before the Court of Criminal Appeal on a considerable number of occasions in the course of the last few years and the modern practice has become well defined. In each of those cases, of course, it has been natural for counsel for the appellant or applicant to cite a trio of cases which are mentioned in Archbold's Criminal Pleading … Peckham …...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • Valentino Dorsette v R
    • Bahamas
    • Court of Appeal (Bahamas)
    • 27 May 2021
    ...evidence through inadvertence, the jury must be discharged: R. v. Weaver and Weaver [1968] 1 Q.B. 353, 51 Cr.App.R. 77, CA, followed in R. v. Palin, 53 Cr.App.R. 535, CA. Where such irregularity occurs during the trial of a defendant who is not represented by counsel, it is the duty of t......
  • Raphael v R
    • Bahamas
    • Court of Appeal (Bahamas)
    • 13 December 2016
    ...Patrick Alexis Jervis, & Chad Goodman SCCr. App. Nos. 12, 18, 19 of 2007 mentioned Maxo Tido v. Regina SCCr.App. No 296 mentioned R v. Marr (1989) 90 Cr AppR 154 applied R v. Gumbs (1927) 19 Cr. App. R. 94 mentioned R v. Stone [1999] 2 SCR 290 applied R. Stripp (1978) 69 Cr. App. R......
  • Gill v Connellan
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 1 January 1988
    ...15 Counsel for the Applicant referred to the following authorities: The People .v. McGuinness (1978) I.R. 189: Rex .v. Hamilton (1969) 113 Solicitors Journal 546: (1969) Criminal Law Reports 486 and The State (Healy) .v. Donoghue (1976) I.R. 16 Counsel submitted that the Applicant's Solici......
  • Joseph Melville v The State
    • Trinidad & Tobago
    • Court of Appeal (Trinidad and Tobago)
    • 2 September 2021
    ...entitled to the standard direction on both limbs of credibility and propensity, which the judge rightly gave. 137 . In R v Weaver 49 and R v Palin 50, it was held that in the event that prejudicial material against the accused was inadvertently revealed in the presence of the jury, this did......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
4 books & journal articles
  • Judge's Right to Close the Public Gallery
    • United Kingdom
    • Journal of Criminal Law, The No. 63-5, October 1999
    • 1 October 1999
    ...RVPalin [1969] 1 WLR 1544 and RvCoughlanandYoung(1976)60 Cr App R 33 are in contrast with those authorities exemplified by thedecision of the House of Lords inGough'scase (1993) 97 Cr App R 188,in which amember of a tribunal concerned with the decision of fact, orwith advising on that decis......
  • Jury Hearing Evidence it Should Not Have Heard
    • United Kingdom
    • Journal of Criminal Law, The No. 63-5, October 1999
    • 1 October 1999
    ...question, there are, as thecourt remarked, two lines of authority. R vWeaverandWeaver[1968] 1433 TheJournalofCriminalLawQB 353, RVPalin [1969] 1 WLR 1544 and R vCoughlanandYoung(1976)60 Cr App R 33 are in contrast with those authorities exemplified by thedecision of the House of Lords inGou......
  • Judge's Right to Close the Public Gallery
    • United Kingdom
    • Journal of Criminal Law, The No. 63-5, October 1999
    • 1 October 1999
    ...RVPalin [1969] 1 WLR 1544 and RvCoughlanandYoung(1976)60 Cr App R 33 are in contrast with those authorities exemplified by thedecision of the House of Lords inGough'scase (1993) 97 Cr App R 188,in which amember of a tribunal concerned with the decision of fact, orwith advising on that decis......
  • Jury Hearing Evidence it Should Not Have Heard
    • United Kingdom
    • Journal of Criminal Law, The No. 63-5, October 1999
    • 1 October 1999
    ...question, there are, as thecourt remarked, two lines of authority. R vWeaverandWeaver[1968] 1433 TheJournalofCriminalLawQB 353, RVPalin [1969] 1 WLR 1544 and R vCoughlanandYoung(1976)60 Cr App R 33 are in contrast with those authorities exemplified by thedecision of the House of Lords inGou......

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