R v Pilcher
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE |
| Judgment Date | 13 June 1974 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1974] EWCA Crim J0613-1 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 5091/R/73 5305/R/73 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
| Date | 13 June 1974 |
[1974] EWCA Crim J0613-1
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
The Lord Chief Justice of England (Lord Widgery)
Mr. Justice Park
and
Mr. Justice Forbes
Nos. 5091/R/73
5304/R/73
5305/R/73
MR. C. GARDNER appeared as Counsel for the Applicant Prichard.
MR. G. BOAL appeared as Counsel for the Applicant Lilley.
MR. L. S. SHIELDS. Q.C., and MR. E. J. BEVAN appeared as Counsel for the Applicant Pilcher.
MR. B. L. LEARY and MR. TUDOR PRICE appeared as Counsel for the Crown.
At the Central Criminal Court on the 14th November last year after a long trial, lasting some 35 working days, these three Applicants were each convicted of perjury, Prichard on one count, count 3 in the indictment, Pilcher on two counts, counts 4 and 7, Lilley, one count namely count 8. Prichard and Lilley were sentenced to eighteen months' imprisonment each, and Pilcher was sentenced to 4 years' imprisonment. Today they apply to us for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence. These three men were all at the material time police officers; they were all part of a special squad in Scotland Yard which was called the Drug Squad, the purpose of which is obvious from its title. Charged with these men were three other members of the Drug Squad including Detective Chief Inspector Kelaher, who was in charge of the squad. The background of the case is that in 1970 the squad, or some members of it, received reliable information that a family called Salah were about to import a very large quantity of cannabis into this country. The information was obviously sound information, because it came quite early on so that action could be taken on it, and for a considerable period this family, the Salahs were under close observation by the Drug Squad. One can gather perhaps the seriousness with which this matter was considered by the authorities by saying that amongst other things, permission was given to tap the telephones of the Salahs, and one knows that is not an authority lightly given by the senior officers who alone can give it.
Matters were reaching their climax when two of the Salah family, a woman called Kathleen R, to distinguish her from another Salah called Kathleen M, and a girl called Janet Salah who were arrested abroad on their way to this country with the expected consignment of cannabis. The result was that the carefully laid plans of the Drug Squad to catch these operators with the goods in their hands at the port of Dover was frustrated by the fact that the whole matter came to light with the arrest of Kathleen R and Janet before they arrived in this country. They were left then with the prospect of prosecuting the remainder of the Salah family in respect of conspiracy to import and matters of that kind.
It was in connection with the prosecution of the Salah family for those charges arising out of this enterprise that the six officers charged in these proceedings were alleged to have committed perjury. There was also in the indictment upon which these three men were charged a count 12 of conspiracy which alleged a conspiracy to defeat the ends of justice by falsifying the records of their enquiries. In the upshot of the matter many of these men were acquitted - when I say "many of these men" many of the six were acquitted. The counts which attracted a conviction were counts 3 against Prichard and count 4 against Pilcher - those two counts were related inasmuch as both officers gave evidence of having been together in the course of their enquiries at a particular time and place.
The case for the Prosecution in the instant trial was that the evidence in question was false, and false to their knowledge, and that they had therefore committed perjury. The actual evidence which they gave upon which the perjury charge was framed was that at 3.10 p.m. on the 13th January 1971 the two men together saw the girl Kathleen R and Janet arrive at an address in Slough, 5, Middle Green Road where the two officers were keeping observation. Each officer said that in the course of the Salah trial; in the present trial it was alleged that the statement was false in respect of each of them and given on oath with knowledge of its falsity. A similar pair of counts which produced convictions were counts 7 and 8. Count 7 concerned Lilley and count 8 concerned Pilcher. The evidence which they gave at the Salah trial was that at 9.20 a.m. on the 19th January 1971 they were keeping observation together at 5, Middle Green Road, Slough, the address to which I have previously referred, where they saw Kathleen and Janet Salah arrive. Again it was contended in the instant trial that that evidence was false to their knowledge, and it resulted in convictions for perjury in each case. But the other accused charged with a similar sort of conduct was acquitted, and all acquitted on the conspiracy charge, count 12.
The Jury, as I say, had a heavy task with a long trial of this kind, and it is necessary in order to keep this Judgment within any reasonable bounds to say one or two words about what appears to us to be either the admitted or clearly established background of this case. These officers in the course of their duty were of course required to keep records; the police officer's pocket book is well known to most people, but additional to that there was a duty book and there was a diary which it was their responsibility to maintain. Much of the force of the Prosecution case against these six officers was that when one examined their duty book and diaries they were to a large measure found to be inconsistent with the evidence which had been given at the Salah trial. To take an example, on counts 7 and 8 dealing with Pilcher and Lilley there the evidence at the Salah trial was that they had been at Slough at 9.20 a.m. on the 19th January, when one looks at Pilcher's duty book one finds an entry which properly interpreted means he had been in the office until 11.00 a.m. that day, although in this case his diary did coincide with the evidence which he had given about their presence at Slough.
Lilley, however, in regard to the same incident had a duty book which showed that he had been at Surbiton from 7.00 a.m. till about 11.30 a.m. and had a diary which again disclosed he had been at Surbiton at hours which were quite inconsistent with his having gone to Slough at 9.20. Much pressed by the Prosecution that these inconsistencies in the records spoke to the falsity of the records in question, the Jury in our opinion were not prepared to accept that argument. The Defence had put forward a general explanation of the inaccuracies in the diary and duty books by saying there had been some leak of information at Scotland Yard in conducting these extremely important and delicate enquiries, and they were not prepared to allow the diaries which were freely available for inspection at Scotland Yard to contain the real information as to what they were doing. It was contended at the trial that a senior officer had authorised the false recording of these matters as a security measure in order to prevent a leak of information about the police officers' intentions.
In our judgment the Jury were prepared to accept that explanation; there seems to be no other way in which the numerous acquittals could be accounted for except on that basis, and the Jury attached a recommendation for mercy by way of rider to their verdict which clearly showed that they took a sympathetic view of the position in which the various Applicants were placed.
Accordingly as it seems to us one ought to approach this case on the footing that the Jury were minded not to be impressed by the inconsistencies in the police records, and as I say that explains the numerous acquittals which occurred.
However, in the case of the four counts which attracted convictions, a very different situation arises, because in the case of those four counts it was not necessary for the Prosecution to rely simply upon inconsistencies in the police records; there was in the case of each of them important and substantial other evidence to show that the evidence given in the Salah trial was false. We will take first of all counts 3 and 4. The evidence as I have already said in regard to counts 3 and 4, that is to say the evidence at the Salah trial said to be false, was that on the 13th January Prichard and Pilcher at 3.10 p.m. were in Slough keeping observation. The Crown was able to call two witnesses, Mrs. Gould and a Miss Clark who spoke to having been in the company of Prichard during the afternoon of the 13th January, and whose evidence was accepted by the Jury as inconsistent with Prichard being in Slough at 3.10. In broad outline, because it is unnecessary in this Judgment to go into detail, these two ladies said they had met Prichard at Scotland Yard at 2.00 p.m. that afternoon by arrangement. Apparently they had...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- R v Tate
-
R v Scott
...It was commented on in R. v. Milliken 53 Cr.App.R. 330 and in R. v. Doran 56 Cr.App.R. 429. The case most in favour of the Appellant is R. v. Pilcher 60 Cr.App.R. 8The headnote sets out the principles which should be applied as follows: "There is an exception to the general rule that the pr......
- DPP v Cargo Handling Ltd
- James v South Glamorgan County Council