R v Parks

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Judgment Date1961
Date1961
Year1961
CourtCourt of Criminal Appeal
[COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL.] REGINA v. PARKS. 1961 Oct. 4. Lord Parker C.J., Slade and Veale JJ.

Crime - Court of Criminal Appeal - Fresh evidence - Discretion to admit - Principles on which discretion exercised - Effect to be given to fresh evidence - Issue of identification on assault charge - Relevance of complainant's convictions for dishonesty - Evidence of person near scene of asault - Criminal Appeal Act, 1907 (7 Edw. 7, c. 23), s. 9.

The defendant was convicted of indecent assault. The complainant had positively identified the defendant, who was a young man with fair hair, as her assailant. The defendant appealed, asking the Court of Criminal Appeal to hear fresh evidence, which was not available at the trial, to show that the complainant had convictions for dishonesty and that a person, who had been near the scene of the assault, had heard a woman scream and had seen a middle-aged man with dark hair run away:—

Held, (1) that the court would only exercise its discretion under section 9 of the Criminal Appeal Act, 1907, to admit further evidence when the evidence was not available at the trial, was relevant to the issue, and was credible evidence, capable of belief; and that, applying that principle the court would admit the evidence.

(2) That that evidence, if given at the trial, might have created a reasonable doubt in the jury's minds; and that, therefore, the conviction must be quashed.

APPEAL against conviction.

The appellant, Sydney Alfred Parks, was convicted on April 18, 1961, of indecent assault at the County of London Sessions and sentenced to 18 month's imprisonment. The Court of Criminal Appeal (Glyn-Jones, Howard and Megaw JJ.) granted leave to appeal against conviction so that the court could consider whether to allow further evidence to be called regarding the issue of identification. The evidence sought to be admitted was (i) evidence that the complainant had eight convictions for dishonesty; (ii) evidence of alleged conversations before and after the trial that the complainant had said that she was not certain of her identification; and (iii) evidence of a baker's roundsman who had been near the scene of the assault, had heard a woman scream and had seen a middle-aged man with dark hair, quite unlike the appellant, running away.

The facts are more fully set out in the judgment.

J. L. Clay for the appellant.

W. M. F. Hudson for the Crown.

The following cases were cited in argument: Rex v. HamiltonF1; Rex v. RobinsonF2; Rex v. HullettF3; Rex v. GreenbergF4; Braddock v. Tillotsons Newspapers Ltd.F5 and Reg. v. Thomas.F6

LORD PARKER C.J. The appellant was convicted of indecent assault at the County of London Sessions and sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment. He now appeals against his conviction by leave of the court.

The short facts of the case are as follows: On January 17, 1961, the complainant was walking home at about a quarter to six and had reached a place called Diamond Court, which is in fact an alleyway through a bombed site, a lonely and ill-lit spot, when suddenly someone sprang on her from behind and pushed her to the ground. She was then indecently assaulted. She claimed that she had in the struggle succeeded in scratching or clawing the right side of his face with her nails, and she claimed that she was in a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
127 cases
  • Dato' Seri Anwar Ibrahim v Public Prosecutor
    • Malaysia
    • Federal Court (Malaysia)
    • Invalid date
  • Mohamad Jamil bin Che Din v Public Prosecutor
    • Malaysia
    • Court of Appeal (Malaysia)
    • Invalid date
  • Chung Tuck Kwai v Public Prosecutor
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 15 May 1998
    ...Van Damme Johannes v PP [1994] 1 SLR 246 and Carl Elias v PP [1995] 2 SLR 501 , adopting Lord Parker CJ`s pronouncement in R v Parks [1961] 3 All ER 633 and Lord Denning`s dicta in Ladd v Marshall [1954] 3 All ER 745. Three conditions have to be fulfilled to justify the court taking additio......
  • Seian Forbes and Tamoy Meggie v R
    • Jamaica
    • Court of Appeal (Jamaica)
    • 16 May 2014
    ...learned counsel submitted, the application should be granted. 22 She cited a number of authorities in support of her submissions, including R v Page (1967) 10 JLR 79, R v Robert Cairns [2000] CLR 473; [2000] Times 8 March, Shawn Allen v R SCCA No 7/2001 (delivered 22 March 2002), R v Collin......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
  • Fresh Evidence and Factual Innocence in the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal
    • United Kingdom
    • Journal of Criminal Law, The No. 81-4, August 2017
    • 1 August 2017
    ...the minds of the jury as to the guilt of the appellant if that evidence had been given together with the otherevidence at the trial’. [1962] 46 Cr App R 29.29. Ibid.30. Ibid. at 32.31. (1948) 32 Cr App R 29. For an analysis of the case, see Williams, above n. 1 at 114–9.32. This case was un......
  • Table of Cases
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Forensic Investigations and Miscarriages of Justice. The Rhetoric Meets The Reality Part Three
    • 15 June 2010
    ...98 R. v. Pantoja, [1998] NSWCA 565 ................................................................................. 154 R. v. Parks, [1961] 1 W.L.R. 1484 .................................................................................... 70 R. v. Patrick Nicholls, [1998] EWCA Crim 1918 ........
  • Case Note
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Journal No. 2019, December 2019
    • 1 December 2019
    ...the trial judge on the evidence before him. 1 Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed. 2 [1954] 1 WLR 1489. These are similar to those stated in R v Parks [1961] 1 WLR 1484: that the court would only exercise its discretion to admit further evidence when the evidence was not available at trial was relevant to ......

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