R v Palmer

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
JudgeLORD JUSTICE RUSSELL
Judgment Date20 August 1993
Judgment citation (vLex)[1993] EWCA Crim J0820-4
Docket NumberCOURT NO: 92/4435/W3
CourtCourt of Appeal (Criminal Division)
Date20 August 1993

[1993] EWCA Crim J0820-4

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL CRIMINAL DIVISION

Before: Lord Justice Russell Mr Justice Waterhouse and Mr Justice Potts

COURT NO: 92/4435/W3

Regina
and
Harry Ashley Jason Palmer

MR COODE appeared on behalf of the Appellant.

MR S DRAYCOTT (18/8/93) and MR A KING (20/8/93) appeared on behalf of the Respondent.

1

Friday, 20th August 1993

LORD JUSTICE RUSSELL
2

It will not be necessary in this judgment to embark upon either a detailed or very close analysis of the evidence. The appeal is concerned with an evidential point —which is in the forefront of counsel's submissions —concerned with the mode of proof in the criminal trial process.

3

On 14th December 1991, two men embarked upon a series of very grave criminal offences. One of them was a man called Thompson. Two innocent people were subjected to a terrifying experience: one was the custodian of some keys giving access to a retail store, which had been targeted as premises suitable for burglary. The two innocent people were a Mr and Mrs McCloskey. They were kidnapped from their home at gunpoint, bundled into a stolen vehicle in which the two robbers were travelling and eventually the couple were abandoned in open countryside at dead of night. The two kidnappers, appropriately attired with balaclavas and the rest of the paraphernalia associated with men of this kind, then drove to the store, used the keys and stole money from it. Thereafter, they attempted to dispose of some incriminating evidence and they set fire to the motor car that had earlier been taken.

4

Thompson was arrested and, although he lied in the early stages, he eventually admitted his part in the criminal escapade, and he implicated this appellant, Harry Ashley Jason Palmer. He was the second man, said Thompson. When the appellant was seen, no doubt in consequence of being implicated by Thompson, he denied all knowledge of the offences, but more of that later.

5

Thompson indicated to the police that he would be prepared to assist by giving evidence against Palmer. So it was that the prosecuting authority decided to commit Thompson for trial in entirely separate committal proceedings. This was done on 16th March 1993. Thereafter, on 13th April 1993, Thompson appeared at Oxford Crown Court before His Honour Judge Francis Allen. He pleaded guilty to an indictment laid against him alone that contained six counts. Those reflected the attack upon the premises occupied by Mr and Mrs McCloskey, the kidnapping of the couple, the burglary of the retail premises, the possession of the firearm without a certificate, the taking of the motor vehicle used in the criminal escapade and the incineration of that vehicle in the circumstances which we have earlier described. Having entered those pleas, the learned Judge postponed sentence.

6

The next stage in the procedure was the charging and committal of this appellant. He elected to have what is termed an "old-style" committal, and some three days after Thompson had pleaded guilty at Oxford Crown Court, so committal proceedings began against this appellant. We emphasise that they were entirely separate from the committal proceedings that had been launched and concluded against Thompson.

7

At the appellant's committal proceedings, Thompson was called by the Crown to give evidence against the appellant. This he did, fully implicating the appellant in the offences we have described. That was not the only evidence that the Magistrates had for their consideration. There was evidence in the form of written statements and there was evidence from the appellant's cohabitee, a Miss Donna Graves. She corroborated to a very marked degree and very extensively the testimony of Thompson, for she recalled the evening when the offences took place and gave evidence to the effect that the appellant had indeed left the home that they shared that night armed with a sawn-off shotgun, that he had been wearing a particular type of training shoe, that he was absent from the house at the time when the robbery and kidnapping took place, that he returned with Thompson, and that the money that had been taken from the store was shared out in her presence between the two.

8

The view which this Court takes about whether there was a prima facie case fit to commit this appellant for trial is emphatically in the affirmative. It was a very strong case indeed.

9

Once the appellant arrived to stand his trial in the Crown Court at Oxford, as he did before Mr Justice Rougier and a jury, a motion to quash the indictment was made to the learned Judge by counsel who then appeared for this appellant. We should at this stage interpose to observe that counsel in the court below has been unable to prosecute this appeal personally and his task has been undertaken by Mr Coode of counsel, to whom we are very grateful for his submissions in what for him must have been a difficult undertaking.

10

He has adopted the arguments advanced by counsel who appeared in the court below and, although it appears as the third ground of appeal, in the forefront of Mr Coode's submissions has been the contention that the committal proceedings were bad, or, in the alternative, if they can be supported, that there is here a verdict which is unsafe and unsatisfactory because of the course that the trial took before Mr Justice Rougier.

11

The point is taken that it was improper of the Crown to call Thompson at the committal stage of the proceedings, or indeed at any later stage of the proceedings, without Thompson having been sentenced for his part in what took place. Mr Coode directed our attention to two authorities: R v Pipe [1967] 51 Cr App R and R v Payne [1950] 1 All ER 102. Both of those authorities, which are now over twenty or thirty years ago, give some support for the proposition that in the ordinary course of events a defendant should be sentenced if he is an accomplice before being called to give evidence for the Crown. Mr Coode readily acknowledges that with the passage of the years that practice has been very much modified, and certainly...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • Lim Eng Kiat; PP
    • Malaysia
    • High Court (Malaysia)
    • 1 January 1995
  • R v Soneji (Kamlesh Kumar)
    • United Kingdom
    • House of Lords
    • 21 July 2005
    ...section 72(A) difficult to interpret and apply. Many confiscation orders have been overturned for very technical failures. An example is R v Palmer, The Times, 5 November 2002, where the Court of Appeal quashed a confiscation order of more than £30 million because of a defect in a prosecuto......
  • R v Montgomery
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
    • 1 July 1994
    ...first time or is institutionalised (as in Leonard); or whether the effect of the sentence would be to separate a mother from her baby: see Palmer (1992) 13 Cr.App.R.(S) 595. 40 (g) Whether or not a special deterrent is needed. This consideration was adverted to without elaboration in the ca......
  • R v Knights (Richard Michael)
    • United Kingdom
    • House of Lords
    • 21 July 2005
    ...confiscation proceedings had it considered them, as plainly it did, appropriate. Furthermore, now that the Court of Appeal's decision in R v Palmer, The Times, 5 November 2002, has been held to be wrongly decided at pp 1672-1673, paras 51-56 of the present case, subsequently affirmed by a f......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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