R v Pearce (Stephen)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | MR. JUSTICE CANTLEY |
| Judgment Date | 19 November 1980 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1980] EWCA Crim J1119-1 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
| Docket Number | No. 2684/C/79 |
| Date | 19 November 1980 |
[1980] EWCA Crim J1119-1
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Lord Justice Eveleigh
Mr. Justice Cantley
and
Mr. Justice Lloyd
No. 2684/C/79
MR. N. FRIDD appeared on behalf of the Appellant.
MR. A. ARLIDGE appeared on behalf of the Crown.
On 11th October 1977 the Appellant and a youth named Hume, who was subsequently indicted jointly with the Appellant, were standing together outside an empty shop at a road junction in the centre of Barking. Other youths were standing around. Hume stuck a piece of paper on the window of the shop. The paper bore the inscription "Wogs go back to Africa". The Appellant was holding other sheets of paper bearing similar inscriptions which he thrust into a bag when the police appeared. The Appellant and Hume were arrested and they were eventually jointly indicted on two charges:
Incitement to racial hatred, contrary to Section 5A of the Public Order Act, 1936, as amended by Section 70 (2) of the Race Relations Act, 1976. This charge was founded on publication of the paper which was stuck on the window.
Conspiracy to contravene the provisions of Section 5A of the Public Order Act, 1936, as amended, contrary to Section 1 (1) of the Criminal Law Act, 1977. This charge was founded on intended publication of the other papers.
They were each convicted on both charges. The Appellant appeals against his conviction on the charge of conspiracy. As he was conditionally discharged on both charges his appeal has more technical than practical importance and provides another example of the inconvenience which may result from charging persons with a substantive offence and also with conspiracy to commit it.
Section 5A of the Public Order Act, 1936 provides that no prosecution for an offence under the Section shall be instituted in England or Wales except by or with the consent of the Attorney General. On 6th February 1978, before the institution of proceedings against the Appellant for an offence under that section, the Attorney General issued his consent in the following terms: "The Public Order Act 1936. Re: Stephen John Pearce. In pursuance of my powers under Section 5A of the above named Act, I hereby consent to the prosecution of Stephen John Pearce of 68 Bastable Avenue, Barking, Essex for an offence or offences contrary to the provisions of the said Section."
No objection is or could be taken against the sufficiency of this consent so far as the substantive charge under Section 5A of the Public Order Act is concerned. It covers any offence or offences contrary to Section 5A. It is clear law since the case of Cain and Schollick (1975 61 C.A.R. 186)...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
N v Secretary of State for the Home Department
...was reached by the Courts-Martial Appeal Court and the House in Secretary of State for Defence v Warn [1970] AC 394. In R v Pearce (1980) 72 CrAppR 295 a lack of consent by the Attorney General, required by s. 4(3) of the Criminal Law Act 1977, as amended, led to the quashing of the convict......
-
R (Uberoi and Another) v City of Westminster Magistrates' Court
...is required, any prosecution without the necessary consent would be a nullity and any conviction would have to be quashed on appeal: see R v Pearce 72 Cr App R 295. It was also agreed that the wording of section 61(2) of the 1993 Act prohibits the institution of proceedings for insider deal......
-
R v McLaughlin
...However, the complaint here is that no consent was given as required by Section 4(3) of the 1977 Act and reliance is placed on Pearce, 72 Cr.App.R. 295. In that case the defendant was indicted with conspiracy to contravene Section 5A of the Public Order Act, 1936 contrary to Section 1(1) o......
-
R v Lalchan
...a writ of venire de novo for a fresh trial would be issued (post, paras 27, 33–44).R v Angel [1968] 1 WLR 669, CA, R v Pearce (1980) 72 Cr App R 295, CA, R v Sekhon [2003] 1 WLR 1655, CA, R v Soneji [2006] 1 AC 340, HL(E) and Seal v Chief Constable of South Wales Police [2007] 1 WLR 1910, H......