R v Petkar and another
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE RIX,Lord Justice Rix |
| Judgment Date | 16 October 2003 |
| Neutral Citation | [2003] EWCA Crim 2273,[2003] EWCA Crim 2332,[2003] EWCA Crim 2668 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
| Docket Number | No: 200204303/4304/Z5,Case No: 2002/04303/Z5 & 2002/04304/Z5 |
| Date | 16 October 2003 |
[2003] EWCA Crim 2273
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL CRIMINAL DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London, WC2
Lord Justice Rix
Mr Justice Douglas Brown
Sir Richard Tucker
No: 200204303/4304/Z5
MR P ROCHE appeared on behalf of PETKAR
MR J J CLARKE appeared on behalf of FARQUHAR
MR R MILNE appeared on behalf of the CROWN
th July 2003
We thank you for your submissions. We are not able to give a fully reasoned judgment this evening, but as the long vacation is upon us we want you to have our decision which is that both appeals are dismissed.
Now, you have an -is it an application, a renewed application —
In relation to sentence.
In relation to sentence, yes. (Pause). It is a single point of delay, isn't it, due to the absconding of Farquhar.
And other reasons, but yes.
We would be prepared to allow the appeal and offer a six month discount on the basis of delay? Do you wish to try and do better than that?
My Lord, I don't think there is much I can say. All that I would say is that the authorities suggest that credit should be given for a delay of two years. This was a delay of three years. Your Lordships really know the circumstances.
Yes. (Pause). If that is what you wish to say, then we will give you permission to appeal and allow the appeal to the extent of substituting -it is a five year sentence, is it -substituting for the five year sentence a sentence of four years and six months.
Sorry, the sentence is?
The sentence is four years and six months in place of five years. We will roll up the reasons for that in our judgment which will be handed down at the beginning of next term in all probability. There is no need for any of you to attend.
(Court adjourned)
[2003] EWCA Crim 2332
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION
Lord Justice Rix
Mr Justice Douglas Brown
Sir Richard Tucker
No: 200204303/4304/Z5
MR P ROCHE appeared on behalf of PETKAR
MR C CLARKE appeared on behalf of FARQUHAR
MR R MILNE appeared on behalf of the CROWN
PROCEEDINGS AND JUDGMENT
th June 2003
Mr Milne, let me mention what we are minded to do and if any of you have any comments now is the time to make them. We are minded to give leave to Farquhar on grounds 3, 7 and 9; 3 is only there because 7 and 9 are there. We understand fully that the Crown is not in a position to deal at any rate with ground 7 today. We are concerned, however, about these appeals progressing otherwise than together.
Yes.
And although we have invested a lot of time already today in Pektar's appeal, at the moment we see no answer to the need to really call a halt to the appeal today and have the two appeals listed denovo on some other occasion. Now do you have any comments on that?
My Lord, if your Lordship would forgive me. Ground 3, could I ask your Lordship to remind me of ground 3.
Ground 3 is the grandmother's evidence by way of statement and the short point there, as I understand it, is simply that, although the prosecution accepted that evidence, the jury were kept out of that information because Petkar did not accept it and so the judge merely said that that was not accepted by all parties. Ground 7 is the ground emerging from the information of the confiscation proceedings and ground 9 is the section 34 direction.
My Lord, can I make comment as I was invited? If the point —the ground 9/Petkar your Lordships have heard this morning and this afternoon is successful, then, of course, it really makes academic the other grounds of appeal if that point itself makes the conviction unsafe. I appreciate there may be supporting factors, or supporting grounds, that makes the conviction overall unsafe. I appreciate I can't invite your Lordships to rule upon the narrow section 34 point as against both appellants.
My Lord, in relation to the second point, which is what has been deemed the confiscation point, I can, perhaps, answer it —perhaps not sufficient for your Lordships to reverse the —your Lordships have given leave, so I don't seek to argue against it. I hope I can make clear my error in relation to these three, the documents that were the Magenta 4X Corporation. In fact there are four accounts within there. It is entirely my error. The first two pages, what I called the Magenta 4X, is the landscape related, to use the last two digits, the 67 account and the third, last page, is in relation to the 59 account.
Yes.
So the error was me putting before your Lordship what I thought was one account. Your Lordships will see in relation to the corporate account, the 67 account, as opposed to the 59, which is the personal account, in the 67 account I have here —I know your Lordships haven't seen it and have time to consider it —all the supporting document is which shows that each and every one of the credits into the 67 account was from abroad and by way of telegraphic transfer principally from America.
And from a variety of sources or from one sources?
If your Lordship would forgive me. From a variety of sources, all be it that some are repeated, AIG. There is quite a lot of —a certain amount of inter-account transfers. Your Lordship will see —and this is perhaps by way of explanation for a later date —the 7th March a considerable amount —7th March 2001 on the 67 account, page 2 the first entry, your Lordships will see a £1.6 million-odd credit which then gets moved to a different account, which, of course, is in fact as your Lordships will see is the 59 account. So quite a lot of cross-swopping back in and back out.
My Lord, your Lordships have given leave in relation to that. I won't address you further. The Crown will in due course have to prepare a full investigation. In effect the Crown will be saying these are entirely unconnected and thereby supporting Mr Pektar's assertion that these are entirely unconnected with the thefts that took place, or the theft in particular that took place on 30th November 1998.
My Lord, I am trying to recall —I don't have, I am afraid, I simply can't remember the position the Crown took on the grandmother's statement. She died from recollection between the first and second trial, having made a section 9, or almost a section 9 statement, a written and signed statement, albeit it was not in section 9 format, or it may have been. The Crown were neutral on it. The application was made under section 23.
It wasn't that the Crown —the Crown never took a view on the shooting. Your Lordship will appreciate that one defendant was arrested for attempting to pervert the course of justice, that was Mr Farquhar by the police. It was fully investigated as an attempt. Fully investigated by an entirely separate team of police officers, nothing to do with this case. And was investigated in the alternative as to perverting the course of justice, or as an attempted murder. The Crown —at the conclusion of the investigation the police were not in a position to either charge Mr Petkar with attempted murder, or Mr Farquhar with perverting the course of justice. They may have had their private views, but that is how the Crown left it. Therefore they were not in a position to challenge the grandmother's version of events, in particular about black men being outside her house and such like. But, on the other hand, they didn't accept it section 9, if I put it that way.
So they were neutral. They didn't accept it. They were neutral.
They were neutral. They were not a position to accept it section 9 and they were neutral. I don't know what —from recollection, before each statement was read I was very particular on behalf of the Crown, and indeed the learned judge was very particular, because statements were read under different, sometimes admissions, sometimes section 9, sometimes section 23, sometimes the Crown accepting them, sometimes the defendant. My recollection in very broad terms was that the learned judge was very careful to say who was accepting them and who was not. But simply after a year and a week after the conclusion of the trial I am not in a position to remember and I would have to check the record. So in terms of those, and clearly your Lordship has given leave, but it will be a fairly short point.
Your Lordship asked me a very simple question, what is the best way of dealing with it. I can see no other way. It is always going to be the case that your Lordships should hear both the leave and the substantive appeal because of the very problems that have occurred with different single judges giving leave on one occasion and for some reason —
Did they go to different —no, it went to the same single judge. I think the misfortune actually is that the renewal of Farquhar was not taken promptly to this Court but there we are.
My Lords, I can't see any other way. Can I pass up to your Lordships it is a document which was exhibited in the case. It answers one of your Lordship's questions as to the source of the application of funds. Your Lordship had a number of questions about where the monies went. This was a document that was extensively used at trial. It was produced by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R v Ali (Liaquat)
...authority for making such a deduction on those grounds (see, e.g., Mills v HM Advocate & Anr [2002] 3 WLR 1597 and R v Petkar Farquhar [2004] 1 Cr App R 22). We shall grant permission to both applicants and allow their appeals by reducing the sentence of twelve years to one of ten, a period......
-
References Between John Barclay+william James Bain+her Majesty's Advocate+douglas Mclean+her Majesty's Advocate
...to any comments or inference to be drawn in relation to a defence statement (Tibbs [2000] 2 Cr.App. R 309; R v Petkar/R v Farquhar [2003] EWCA Crim 2668, per Rix LJ at para 51; R v Essa [2009] EWCA Crim 43). In Scotland, an accused could be cross-examined about discrepancies arising in rela......
-
R (W) v Brent Youth Court
...1252 Admin; R (on the application of W) v Southampton Youth Court [2002] EWCH 1640; R (on the application of C) v Balham Youth Court [2004] 1 Cr App R 22; and R (on the application of M and W) v West London Youth Court [2004] EWHC 1144. 4 Then, in an attempt to assist youth courts, he provi......
-
R v Thomas Alexander Haigh
...the jury would consider the possibility that they might not be sure about the guilt of either defendant. He referred us to an example in R v Petkar [2004] 1 Cr.App.R 22 at paragraph 64. 27 We are not impressed by this ground. The judge gave clear and concise directions which we regard as su......
-
Exemplum Habemus: Reflections on the Judicial Studies Board's Specimen Directions
...See also P[2002] EWCA Crim (no neutralcitation number ascribed), Transcript No. 0006442/Z5 at [28], per Kay LJ; Petkarand Farquhar [2003] EWCA Crim 2668, per Rix LJ.The Journal of Criminal familiar problem of how to direct the jury on a defendant’s failure tomention facts during police inte......