R v Prime
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE |
| Judgment Date | 22 March 1973 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1973] EWCA Crim J0322-4 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
| Docket Number | No. 3480/A/72 |
| Date | 22 March 1973 |
[1973] EWCA Crim J0322-4
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
The Lord Chief Justice of England (Lord Widgery)
Lord Justice James
and
Mr. Justice Nield
No. 3480/A/72
MR. A. ARLIDGE appeared as Counsel for the Appellant.
MR. D. COCKS appeared as Counsel for the Crown.
At Cambridge Crown Court last June this Appellant was convicted of attempted burglary and going equipped for theft; he was sentenced to one year's imprisonment concurrent on each of those two counts and consecutive thereto he was sentenced to six months' imprisonment for an offence of handling stolen goods, for which he had previously been put on probation.
He originally sought to appeal against conviction and sentence but his application in regard to sentence was disposed of and refused by the full Court on 11th January of this year. On that occasion, however, the full Court gave leave to appeal against conviction.
It is not necessary to go into the facts of the case in any detail, except it is pertinent to observe that the Prosecution evidence against this man is very strong. On the day in question, which was the 17th April 1972, at about 3 o'clock in the morning he was seen by a police officer acting suspiciously by a motor car, and when the officer spoke to him about his being there with the car at that time in the morning, he said they had run out of petrol and he had just gone to buy some petrol to start again. The officer looked inside the car; he saw a plastic handled yellow screwdriver in the driver's glove compartment; it was then straight and undamaged.
About half an hour later, that is to say about half past three the same morning, the Appellant's friends were seen by the police to walk away from the car, and shortly after that the Appellant moved towards a wooden fence at the rear of a shop; he was seen to climb over the fence; after that he was seen to come back again and he had with him a long screwdriver with a yellow plastic handle in his left hand. The police asked him why he had been over the fence; he said he had been there to relieve himself. When asked what he was doing with a bicycle which was in his possession, he ran off, the screwdriver still in his hand. He was chased by the police and caught, and the police evidence was that they found a yellow plastic handled screwdriver in the vicinity and the blade was bent.
Further attention being paid to the rear of the shop to which I have already referred, it was found that an attempt had been made to force the window; the window had scratch marks on it, paint particles were missing, the window was bent at the comer as a result of someone having tried to force it. The evidence of the Forensic Science Officer was that crushed paint flakes near the tip of the bent screwdriver tallied with the paint on the shop in question. It was a strong case reinforced by the Forensic evidence.
The trial duly took place, and no point is taken in regard to the directions given to the jury. Indeed the only point taken on this appeal is in regard to an alleged irregularity which occurred in the course of the trial. What is said is that on the first day of the trial the jurors had separated at the midday adjournment, and two jurors were seen walking in a street near the Court House in the company of a man called Earl. Earl had been in Court that morning; indeed he had been called as a juror but apparently of his own initiative he had said that he knew the Appellant Prime and that he did not think it was right he should sit on the jury, and he was accordingly excused from jury service on that account. He remained in Court and during the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
DPP v Anthony McCarthy and Others
... ... - Juror employed in garda station - Whether objective bias present - Jury not warned not to discuss case with other people - Whether failure to warn jury rendered trial unfair - People (DPP) v Tobin [2001] 3 IR 469 and People (DPP) v McDonagh [2003] 4 IR 417 applied; R v Melvyn John Prime [1973] 57 Ct App 632 distinguished - Juries Act 1976 (No 4), s 16 - Identification evidence - Recognition - Judge's charge - Identification warning - Whether warning sufficient - Whether appropriate to read excerpt from judgment - People (AG) v Casey (No 2) [1963] 1 IR 33 applied, People (DPP) v ... ...
-
R v Spencer
...caution and a warning that it is dangerous to convict. Indeed, the difference is obvious: see R. v. Price (Herbert) (1969) 1 Q.B. 541; R. v. Riley (1979) 70 Cr. App. R. 1 and R.v. Holland (1983) Crim. L.R. 14"We are in no doubt that the three complainants in the present case were shown to......
-
DPP v M.K.
...1 K.B. 467; (1916) 11 Cr. App. R. 54. R. v. Neal [1949] 2 K.B. 590; [1949] 2 All E.R. 438; (1948) 33 Cr. App. R. 189. R. v. Prime (1973) 57 Cr. App. R. 632. The State (Attorney General) v. Moore [1950] Ir. Jur. Rep. 45. Winsor v. R. L.R. 1 Q.B. 289. Criminal law - Sexual offence - Corrobora......
- Webb v R