R v Patel
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | MR. JUSTICE BRISTOW |
| Judgment Date | 26 January 1981 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1981] EWCA Crim J0126-2 |
| Date | 26 January 1981 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
| Docket Number | No. 5173/A/79 |
[1981] EWCA Crim J0126-2
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Lord Justice Shaw
Mr. Justice Bristow
and
Mr. Justice Hodgson
No. 5173/A/79
MR. DEXTER G. MOSELY appeared for the Crown.
MR. N. LEY appeared for the Appellant.
On the 22nd November, 1979, Abdulhamid Ibrahim Patel, then aged 32, was tried at the Preston Crown Court before His Honour Judge Openshaw, on an indictment containing ten counts, as follows. Counts 1 and 2 were handling stolen goods. He was convicted and sentenced to six months on each count concurrent. Count 3 was obtaining a policy of insurance by deception. This count was not proceeded with and was ordered to lie on the file, not to be proceeded with without leave. Counts 4 and 5 were assisting illegal entry into the United Kingdom, contrary to Section 25(1)(d) of the Immigration Act, 1971. He was convicted and sentenced to three years on each count concurrent with each other, and with the sentences on counts 1 and 2. Count 6 was assisting illegal entry into the United Kingdom, contrary to Section 25(1) of the Immigration Act, 1971, and he was acquitted. Count 7 was possession of a false document, contrary to Section 26(1)(d) of the Immigration Act, 1971. He was convicted and sentenced to three months concurrent. Count 8 was assisting illegal entry into the United Kingdom, contrary to Section 25(1) of the Immigration Act, 1971. He was convicted and sentenced to four years' imprisonment concurrent. Count 9 was harbouring an illegal entrant, contrary to Section 25(2) of the Immigration Act, 1971. He was sentenced to three months concurrent. Count 10 was inciting someone to enter the office of the Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages at Chorley and steal registration certificates. He was acquitted of that.
In passing sentence, the learned trial judge observed that it was quite plain that Patel was running some sort of ghastly racket, and that it was conduct which could not be tolerated since it created illwill between the various races, and racial prejudice. The learned judge made it clear that the sentences which he passed were intended, in total, to be exemplary.
Patel now applies to this court for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence. This court has given leave to appeal and, since counsel for both Patel and the prosecution have been present and have presented argument to the court, has treated the hearing as the hearing of the appeal.
No argument has been presented by Mr. Ley on behalf of Patel in respect of his convictions on counts 1 and 2. In so far as his appeal relates to conviction and sentence on those counts, it is dismissed. Not only were the sentences proper, but they have already been served. This court does not interfere with those sentences. Mr. Cattan, on behalf of the prosecution, rightly does not seek to support the convictions on counts 7 and 9. It is accepted that the offences charged in these counts are offences triable only summarily, not on indictment, see Regina v. Mehet and Hays, decided in this court on the 21st March, 1980, unreported, a case which does not appear to have been cited for the assistance of the learned trial judge when asked to rule on the question of the jurisdiction of the Crown Court in relation to counts 7 and 9. The convictions on those counts are therefore quashed.
So there remain the appeals in respect of counts 4, 5 and 8. Count 4 charged Patel and Mohammed Ashraf with being knowingly concerned in making arrangements for facilitating the entry into the U.K. of Ashraf, who he knew, or had reasonable cause to believe was an illegal entrant. Count 5 charged Patel with being knowingly concerned in making arrangements for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Roy S Selvarajah v Public Prosecutor
...Jayanthi [1998] 1 SLR (R) 305; [1998] 2 SLR 165 (folld) Public Prosecutor v Datuk Tan Cheng Swee [1979] 1 MLJ 166 (folld) R v Patel [1981] 3 All ER 94 (distd) Subramaniam v Public Prosecutor [1956] 1 WLR 965 (folld) Tay Kok Poh Ronnie v PP [1995] 3 SLR (R) 545; [1996] 1 SLR 185 (folld) Turn......
-
Jennings v Crown Prosecution Service
...not… restricted to cases where the alleged offender has received into his possession or retained the property the subject of the charge." In Patel 12 the appellant had obtained some £51,950 by means of a fraudulent conspiracy. He paid half of it over to his accomplice. But a confiscation or......
-
R v Abadom
...inadmissible on the ground that it was based on hearsay. Secondly, there is a dictum to the same effect in the decision of this court in R. v. Patel (1981) 73 C.A.R. 117 at page 120 to which we have referred in our judgment in 15However, it was submitted that the present case was indistingu......
-
The Caribbean Home Insurance Company Ltd v Lynch and Thomas
...also Cummings J.A in White v. Marias Co. Ltd., v. Fernandez No: 63–64 of 1968 given in the Guyana Court of Appeal on 17 th April 1970. See R v. Sang [1979] 2 All E.R. 1222, Seenath v. Seenath 14 W.I.R 43; Agostini v. Agostini 12 T & T L Report (1951 – 1952) at p. 27 Jacker v. The Internatio......