R v Pink
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE MEGAW |
| Judgment Date | 16 September 1970 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1970] EWCA Crim J0916-1 |
| Docket Number | No. 3455/C/69 |
| Date | 16 September 1970 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
[1970] EWCA Crim J0916-1
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Lord Justice Megaw
Mr. Justice James
and
Mr. Justice O'Connor
No. 3455/C/69
MR. J.R. PLAYFORD appeared on behalf of the Appellant.
MR. B. WALSH appeared on behalf of the Crown.
The Appellant Ronald Pink was convicted at Leeds Assizes on the 7th May, 1969 of living wholly or in part on the earnings of the prostitution of a woman named Margaret Wilson. He was sentenced to four years' imprisonment. He applied for leave to appeal against conviction. In October 1969 the single Judge granted him leave to appeal against conviction. The ground on which the single Judge granted leave was this. At the trial at Leeds Assizes the Appellant was offered legal aid and refused it and conducted his own defence. He did not give evidence or make an unsworn statement from the dock, nor did he call any witnesses. The learned Judge invited counsel for the prosecution to address the Jury for a second time after the Appellant had stated that he would not give evidence. Counsel for the prosecution accepted that invitation and addressed the Jury.
The single Judge took the view that that was wrong. He granted legal aid subject to a statement of means which was supplied by the Appellant in December 1969. It is apparent that an irregularity occurred and counsel appearing for the prosecution in this appeal does not seek to contend the contrary.
The position which arises out of practice stemming from Section 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1865 is correctly set out in the well known work of Archbold at Paragraph 559: "Where an accused who is unrepresented gives evidence himself but calls no other witnesses, counsel for the prosecution is not allowed to address the jury a second time", and the same applies where an accused who is unrepresented not only does not call any other witnesses but does not give evidence himself.
This Court agrees with the single Judge. There was thus at the least an irregularity at the trial. The appeal came before this Court differently constituted on the 5th March of this year. The Appellant was represented by counsel, Mr. Playford, who has appeared on behalf of the Appellant today. The Court was then told that the Appellant had recently disclosed to counsel that he had received information which led him to believe that a member of the Jury at the trial was personally known to the woman Margaret Wilson. It was desired to adduce evidence to that effect. Accordingly, an adjournment was asked for on behalf of the Appellant and this was granted. The Appellant was required to furnish the Court with a statement of the proposed new evidence at the earliest possible moment. To that end the Appellant was granted the legal aid of solicitors as well as of counsel. This Court has been informed by Mr. Playford that the matter having been investigated it is not thought right to pursue it further. In those circumstances this Court says no more about that matter.
The facts of the case can be fairly briefly summarised. The woman Margaret Wilson gave evidence that she first met the Appellant in June 1968. She was then aged 18 and a prostitute. Between then and the 2nd August, 1968 she used to stay with him three or four times a week and on one occasion she went with him to Glasgow and spent some time with him there. She gave the Appellant, she said, the money which she would earn from prostitution. At the time of the trial Wilson was in Borstal for an offence of theft.
A number of other prostitutes were called at the trial, at least one of them to give evidence of seeing Wilson with the Appellant during this period, but also in order that they might establish a system to rebut the anticipated defence of innocent association between the Appellant and Wilson. None of these prostitutes gave evidence that Wilson actually gave the Appellant money.
A Police Officer gave evidence of arresting Wilson for loitering for prostitution on the 1st August, 1968. He said that when she was granted bail that evening he, the Police Constable, thereafter saw her approaching and speaking to the Appellant. She then resumed her loitering for prostitution and was once again arrested the same night.
The Appellant was not arrested until the 21st January, 1969. He was then in Carlisle. He told, according to the Police, a number of lies, including denying his identity, denying that he had any girlfriends, denying that he had ever lived in Leeds, denying that he knew Wilson and denying that he possessed a car. Some of these lies were immediately detected by reason of documents found upon him.
There was found on him a photograph showing two of the prostitutes, witnesses who gave evidence at the trial, naked in bed. That photograph was put in evidence at the trial.
Mr. Playford on behalf of the Appellant has said clearly and well everything that can be said in support of this appeal against conviction. His point is, of course, the irregularity of the second speech by counsel for the prosecution when the Appellant was not calling witnesses and the Appellant was not represented by counsel. The real issue is whether or not in this case, having regard to that irregularity, the Court can and should apply the proviso contained in Section 2 (1) of the Criminal Appeal Act of 1968.
The terms of that proviso are well known: "Provided that the Court may, notwithstanding that they are of opinion that the point raised in the appeal might be decided in favour of the appellant, dismiss the appeal if they consider that no miscarriage of Justice has actually occurred".
Mr. Playford refers us to the case of R. v. Mondon decided in 1968 by this Court and reported in 52 Criminal Appeal Reports at page 695. The facts very briefly in that case were that the woman Mrs. Mondon was accused of shoplifting. She dismissed her counsel and solicitor and conducted her own defence. She was convicted. The essence of the issue which arose at the trial was that she said, and witnesses for the prosecution denied, that she had given a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Mohammed (Allie) v Trinidad and Tobago sub nom Mohammed (Allie) v State, The
-
Ritch v R
...590; [1949] 2 All E.R. 438; (1949), 65 T.L.R. 557; 93 Sol. Jo. 589; 113 J.P. 468; 48 L.G.R. 93; 33 Cr. App. R. 189. (10) R. v. Pink, [1971] 1 Q.B. 508; [1970] 3 All E.R. 897; (1970), 114 Sol. Jo. 805; 55 Cr. App. R. 16, considered. (11) R. v. Reynolds, [1950] 1 K.B. 606; [1950] 1 All E.R. 3......
-
R v Stovell (2006)
...improperly and inappropriately made a final speech in relation to an unrepresented defendant, that the conviction would be quashed (see R v Pink 55 Cr App R 29 Mr Corsellis, on behalf of the Crown, submits that the judge's refusal to adjourn for further legal representation is not susceptib......
-
R v Rabini (Khalid)
...improperly and inappropriately made a final speech in relation to an unrepresented defendant, that the conviction would be quashed. (see R v Pink 55 Cr App R 16).” We pause there to say that in Pink in the final paragraph the court dealing with the proviso again said this: “In the view of t......