R v Pipe
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE |
| Judgment Date | 24 October 1966 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1966] EWCA Crim J1024-7 |
| Court | Court of Criminal Appeal |
| Docket Number | No. 1636/66 |
| Date | 24 October 1966 |
[1966] EWCA Crim J1024-7
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
The Lord Chief Justice of England (Lord Parker)
Lord Justice Winn
and
Mr. Justice Widgery
No. 1636/66
MR. J. BLOFELD appeared on behalf of the Appellant.
MR. J. RYMAN appeared on behalf of the Crown.
This Appellant was convicted at the East Suffolk Quarter Sessions last May of house breaking and larceny and sentenced to 15 months' imprisonment. He now appeals against his conviction on a certificate from the learned Chairman.
The facts giving rise to this charge were as follows: on Wednesday, 16th February, sometime after eight o'clock in the evening, Mrs. Harrison's bungalow was broken into and a safe and its contents were stolen. There had been some 420 cigarettes on top of the safe and those also were stolen. They consisted of an unopened carton of 200 packets of 20 cigarettes each of Benson and Hedges Silk Cut, a similar carton, opened and containing 160 cigarettes in packets of 20, and another carton containing 60 Bachelor's cigarettes.
It appeared that some two weeks before this happened, the Appellant and a woman called Susan Colton, with whom the Appellant was on friendly terms, had undoubtedly gone to Mrs. Harrison's bungalow to make enquiries about a caravan which she had for sale.
Some seven days after the offence, Detective Sergeant Hart went to Miss Colton's flat and there found, to some extent concealed, in a suitcase on top of the wardrobe an unopened carton containing 200 packets each of 20 Benson and Hedges Silk Cut cigarettes, a similar carton containing some three packets, and also a wrapper from a carton of Bachelor cigarettes. Miss Colton said they had been given her by the Appellant.
That same day the Appellant was interviewed and cautioned. He admitted that he had been with Miss Colton to Mrs. Harrison's bungalow about a caravan on the previous occasion, but he said that on the Wednesday night in question he had been at Miss Colton's flat and had not left until midnight. That was clearly a lie because when he was told that Miss Colton had said he left much earlier, he immediately changed his story and said that he had been to some other people from 9.30 until about 10.30. He then said that having been to those other people called Aldred, he had gone home. That was the second lie because he went on to say that in fact he had gone to see a man called Swan about the brakes on his car.
With regard to the cigarettes, he said in the first instance that he had never given Miss Colton the cigarettes to keep for him, although it is to be observed that in evidence he claimed that the cigarettes had at some time in january been bought by him and given to her to keep.
Subsequently it was found that there were fragments of paint on the floor of the boot of his car which were similar to the paint on the safe that had been stolen. Further, in the boot of the car were found dog hairs which were similar to the dog hairs from the dog of Mrs. Harrison. Finally, the safe was found dumped in a pond at Blunderstone with the back ripped open.
In addition, the Prosecution called a witness called Swan and in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R v Palmer
...the proceedings, without Thompson having been sentenced for his part in what took place. Mr Coode directed our attention to two authorities: R v Pipe [1967] 51 Cr App R and R v Payne [1950] 1 All ER 102. Both of those authorities, which are now over twenty or thirty years ago, give some su......
-
Nicoletta v R
...A. Roberts, Crown Counsel, for the Crown. Cases cited: (1) R. v. HughesUNK(1985), 81 Cr. App. R. 344, followed. (2) R. v. PipeUNK(1967), 51 Cr. App. R. 17, distinguished. (3) R. v. TurnerUNK(1975), 61 Cr. App. R. 67, dicta of Lawton, L.J. applied. Legislation construed: Criminal Procedure C......
- Ku Hang Chua; PP
-
DPP v Fitzgerald
...an accomplice to damnify the accused and to understate his or her own role. That is why that procedure is desirable. Thus in R v Pipe (1967) 51 Cr App R 17 at 21, Lord Parker LCJ stated: In the judgment of this court, it is one thing to call for the prosecution an accomplice, a witness whos......
-
Court of Appeal
...'sothatthere can be no suspicionthathisevidence is coloured by the factthathe hopes to get a lighter sentence'.And, in R v Pipe (1967) 51 CrAppR 17, where a witness for theCrownwas called notwithstanding the factthatchargeshadalready been laidagainst himandwere outstanding, this was declare......