R v Pearce
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE |
| Judgment Date | 17 July 1979 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1979] EWCA Crim J0717-2 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
| Docket Number | No. 4095/A/78 |
| Date | 17 July 1979 |
[1979] EWCA Crim J0717-2
The Lord Chief Justice of England (Lord Widgery)
Lord Justice Waller
and
Mr. Justice Lloyd
No. 4095/A/78
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
MR. J. BLACK, Q.C. and MR. J. FOLEY appeared on behalf of the Appellant.
MR. D. WILLIAMS, Q.C. and MR. W. GASKELL appeared on behalf of the Crown.
The judgment which I am about to read is the judgment of the court prepared by Mr. Justice Lloyd.
On 5th July, 1978 the Appellant was convicted at Newport Crown Court of two counts of handling and fined £100 on each count. He now appeals against conviction by leave of the single judge.
The case raises an unusual question. It has been the practice to admit in evidence all unwritten and most written statements made by an accused person to the police whether they contain admissions or whether they contain denials of guilt. The only exception which readily comes to mind is the exclusion of any admission of a previous conviction. In this case however the judge has excluded two voluntary statements and part of an interview on the grounds that they are self serving statements and as such are not admissible. If the judge is right it would mean that the practice of the courts over the last fifty years or more has been erroneous.
The facts may be briefly stated as follows.
At the material time the Appellant was manager of a branch shop of Gateway Foodmarkets Ltd. at Chepstow. The two counts each relate to two lamb carcasses which the Appellant bought from a man called Kerr. Kerr was the driver of a van belonging to the company which supplied the shop with meat.
The first count related to an occasion in January or early February 1978. On that occasion the Appellant bought two carcasses for £9 each. He asked Mr. Hodge, the butcher employed at the shop, to cut them up. He then sold one to a neighbour for £12 and the other to a fellow employee, Mrs. Bennett, who was a security officer at the shop.
The second count related to an occasion on 27th February 1978, when he bought a further pair of lamb carcasses from Kerr. The price was the same. They were again butchered by Mr. Hodge, and sold at a public house in Bristol.
Mr. Hodge was evidently suspicious, and he spoke to the chief security officer Mr. Mears. Mr. Mears interviewed the Appellant on 6th March. Mr. Mears reported to Mr. Fisher, the personnel director, who asked the Appellant to come and see him on the 7th March, which he did. In due course the police were informed, and the Appellant was arrested and taken to Chepstow police station on the 8th March. He was seen there by D.C. Price and D.C. James, in the presence of his solicitor. The Appellant indicated that he wished to make a statement. It was taken down by D.C. James, between 6.15 and 6.35 on the 8th March, the same day as he was arrested. After a short interval, the Appellant was interviewed Toy the same two police officers. The interview started at 9.50 p.m. It was not known how long the interview lasted. In the course of the interview the Appellant gave certain answers which were later relied on by the prosecution. The next day, 9th March, the Appellant made a second statement between 1.50 p.m. and 2.30 p.m.
When the case came to the trial, it is clear from the transcript that both Counsel expected that the whole of the interview together with both the statements would go before the jury. Just before D.C. Price gave evidence, there was a discussion between the judge and Counsel for the prosecution which started as follows: "The Judge: It seems that you both want the evidence in? Mr. Gaskell: I am, of course, guided by your Honour. Perhaps rather naively, I always take the view that answers to a police officer –although not evidence of their truth – is evidence in the case which the jury are entitled to hear. The Judge: That is not strictly correct. The Court of Appeal say that what a defendant says to a police officer or anyone else is admissible on principle if the defendant is making an admission. If he is not making an admission, it is not admissible."
The judge then took up the matter with Mr. Foley who was then appearing for the Appellant: "The Judge: What do you want in? Mr. Foley: I am content that it should all go in. The Judge: You will have to do better than that. Why should it all go in? Mr. Foley: Only, I suppose, that I think that the jury are entitled to know."
There then followed a discussion as to the editing of the interview. The notes are just over four pages long. About half the interview was excluded by the judge. The discussion then concluded as follows: "The Judge: I have a feeling that I am right anyway in what I have said. I exclude the statements and the evidence of interview, apart from the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wayne Hamil v R
...but as the verdict was not affected by the error, upheld the conviction on the basis that no miscarriage of justice had occurred. 25 In R v Pearce (1979) 69 Cr. App. R. 365, it was made clear that the reference in R v Storey and Anwar to the reaction of the accused ‘when first taxed’ did n......
-
Carlos Hamilton and Jason Lewis v The Queen
...for the admissibility of self-serving statements to rebut an allegation of recent fabrication. 51 Mr Fitzgerald relied upon the case of R v Pearce (1979) 69 Cr App R 365 Lord Widgery CJ, giving the reserved judgment of the Court prepared by Lloyd J, said (at 368): "The case raises an unusu......
-
R v Sharp (Colin)
...unverified on oath, such as the appellant had made after arrest, was not evidence save in so far as it contained admissions …" 27In Reg. v. Pearce (1969) 69 Cr.App.R. 365 the Court of Appeal said, at p. 369: "(1) A statement which contains an admission is always admissible as a declaration ......
-
R v Hasan (Aytach)
...The same view is taken by Andrews and Hirst on Criminal Evidence, paragraph 19.04. They cite the words of Lord Widgery CJ in Pearce (1979) 69 Cr App R 365, where he says 'A denial does not become an admission because it is inconsistent with another denial.' In so far as they express a cont......
-
The Duty Of The Prosecution To Adduce The Defendant's Interview
...not obliged to do so. Footnotes Gonzales v Folkestone Magistrates Court [2010] EWHC 3428 (Admin) R v Blinkhorn [2006] EWCA Crim 1416 (1979) 69 Cr.App.R 365 [1968] 1 Q.B. 371 R v Russell-Jones [1995] 1 Cr App R 538 The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the sub......
-
Table of Cases
...v Pan 2001 SCC 21. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .345R v Parnell (1881) 14 Cox CC 508. . . . . . . . . . . 109R v Pearce (1979) 69 Cr App R 365. . . . . . . . . . 320R v Perry (1945) 84 CCC 323 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .123R v Perry, The Times (28 April 2000). . . . . . . . . .......
-
Court of Appeal
...courts appear to adopt a view contrary to that adoptedin other common law jurisdictions. Lord Widgeryc.J.'s statementin R. v. Pearce (1979) 69 Cr.App.R. 365 that "a denial does notbecome an admission because it is inconsistent with another denial"may be contrasted with the Canadian decision......
-
Silence: Lord Taylor's Legacy
...770. 776.138 R vCondron[199711 WLR 827. 837.139 Ibid.140 R vCondron[1997]1 WLR 827. 836-7.141 [1997]1 Cr App R 185. 196.142 R vPearce(1979) 69 Cr App R 365. 370.143 R v Beattie (1989) 89 Cr App R 302. 306; R v Wilmot (1989) 89 Cr App R341.351-2.160THEINTERNATIONALJOURNALOFEVIDENCE&PROOF SIL......
-
The Admissibility of Polygraph Evidence in English Criminal Proceedings
...as confessions, as previous inconsistent statements or under an58 See R v Athwal [2009] EWCA Crim 789, [2009] 1 WLR 2430.59 R vPearce (1979) 69 Cr App R 365; R v Storey (1968) 52 Cr App R 334.60 (1987) 43 DLR (4th) 641.The Journal of Criminal exception to the rule against previous consisten......