R v Raviraj
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE STOCKER |
| Judgment Date | 17 December 1986 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1986] EWCA Crim J1217-1 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 5745/B/85, 5760/B/85, 5761/B/85 and 5944/B/85 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
| Date | 17 December 1986 |
[1986] EWCA Crim J1217-1
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Lord Justice Stocker
Mr. Justice Jupp
and
Mr. Justice Otton
Nos. 5745/B/85, 5760/B/85, 5761/B/85 and 5944/B/85
THE APPLICANT RAVIRAJ was not present and was not represented.
MR. M. LEWIS, Q.C. and MR. W.CLEGG appeared on behalf of the Appellant Maden Lal Kansal.
MR. W. CLEGG appeared on behalf of the Appellant Raj Kumar Kansal.
MR. N. LITHMAN appeared on behalf of the Appellant Gupta.
MR. T. DOCKING appeared on behalf of the Crown.
This is the judgment of the Court which has been written and approved by all three of us.
On 22nd August 1985 in the Crown Court at Snaresbrook before Judge Stable, Q.C. and a jury, the above named were convicted after a 14-day trial of conspiracy to handle stolen goods, contrary to section 1(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1977, as amended by section 5 of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981. They were sentenced as follows: Maden Kansal and Raj Kumar Kansal each were sentenced to six months' imprisonment suspended for two years, they were fined £15,000 with twelve months' imprisonment in default, and ordered to pay £5,000 maximum towards prosecution costs; Surinder Mohan Gupta was sentenced to six months' imprisonment suspended for two years; Thaneran Raviraj was sentenced to nine months' imprisonment suspended for two years and was fined £1,000 with sixty days' imprisonment in default.
Both the Kansals and Gupta now appeal against conviction by leave of the single Judge. Raviraj applies for an extension of time of 33 days in which to renew his application for leave to appeal against conviction after refusal by the single Judge.
The facts, which were fairly complicated and took many days to adduce and to try, can be fairly simply stated in summary form. The Kansal brothers and Raviraj were Directors of Kansal & Co. Ltd. who, together with Gupta, their warehouse manager, traded from premises in Harold Hill. The Kansal brothers and another brother, Pawan, were shareholders in the company.
As the result of the arrest for stealing his load of a man named Watts, a driver employed by Oaklea Transport (Contracts) Ltd., police officers made searches of the Kansals' warehouse on 10th and 13th August 1984. The goods had been stolen by Watts on 8th August. The police found a quantity of property forming part of Watts's load, which included a certain number of sponges. The police also found a quantity of property other than the load stolen by Watts, which included Toblerone, Alka Seltzer and firelighters, which had been specifically manufactured for Sainsburys.
Watts, the lorry driver, was a co-accused at the trial and had admitted that he had stolen a load including the sponges, and that he had delivered them to the Kansals' premises on 8th August. At trial Watts pleaded guilty to this theft. This load had been delivered on that date in the course of the driver's delivery round. Some 21 deliveries had been properly made to the correct customers, but 29 were not so made, and the whole of these 29 deliveries were found at the warehouse on the 10th when the police arrived. Each consignment for their respective customers was so addressed and there were delivery notes in respect of each such consignment. The delivery notes were subsequently found in Watts's lorry.
It was the prosecution case that the accused were involved in a conspiracy to handle stolen goods that were taken to store and sold in their warehouse. It is alleged that the quantity indicated there was not a question of employees working a dishonest sideline, but that the scale and mode of delivery and storage indicated that all the accused were involved, particularly as the goods were intended to be sold through the company's retail outlets. It may well be that had the Watts's load constituted the sole indication of theft that substantive charges of handling would have been brought rather than conspiracy. It was the fact that the Toblerone, Alka Seltzer and firelighters, which were not part of his load and which were stolen on different occasions, were found in the premises that made a conspiracy charge suitable.
In a little more detail the other property found was: Firelighters: a batch of firelighters had been manufactured on 11th April 1984 exclusively for Woolworths by Reckitt and Coleman, with whom Kansal and Co. had an account. The account for the period from time of manufacture to the time of search showed that Kansal did not purchase any firelighters. Nor would they have been supplied with that particular brand even if they had.
Alka Seltzer: are manufactured by Bayer (U.K.) Ltd., and Kansal and Co. have never ordered any Alka Seltzer from that company.
Toblerone: Kansal and Co. have never acquired any bars from Tobler Suchard, the manufacturers. The sample found was from a special promotion, that sample being returned to the producers, who never in fact received it.
There was no evidence as to when the Toblerone or the Alka Seltzer had come into the warehouse.
Sponges: these had been part of the Watts's load delivered to the premises on the 8th, but they were not with the whole of the rest of the bulk, but were found in another part of the warehouse allegedly having been hidden there. They were a special Sainsbury delivery and were clearly so marked.
The defence accepted that the Watts's load was stolen property.
This warehouse performs the function of a warehouse for delivery of goods to various branches which are part of the business Kansal & Co. Ltd. It also serves the function of a Cash and Carry Store for a limited number of the company's customers.
We now turn to consider in bare outline the course of the events when the police arrived and of the subsequent interviews.
Raj Kansal when first seen by the police said that he and his brothers had nothing to do with the day to day running of the business and after the load from Watts was found he said he had no idea what was in the warehouse. When interviewed he implied that he did not know who was responsible for the receipt of goods at the warehouse, he was only the Financial Director.
Maden Kansal, according to the police, was found by them standing in the midst of the whole of the Watts's load in the entrance way to the warehouse. When asked about the load he said he knew nothing about it. It was contended by the Crown that his behaviour was odd to the point of being obstructive. He walked away from the police officer questioning him and spoke to another person in a foreign language trying to shut the door in the officer's face. When asked to speak English, he replied, "Well, that's tough, that's your business".
After being asked to accompany an officer whilst the warehouse was searched, he attempted to get back into the office and continued to speak in a foreign language. When interviewed and asked who his co-directors were, he said he could not name them. He said he could not say what procedures were followed for the payment of goods, nor could he say whether any cash he obtained from the company's bank account was recorded in the company's record.
Maden Kansal was also seen at the second search on 13th August, when police took possession of the Alka Seltzer. This batch was seen on the first search, but a man from Bayers was unsure whether it was stolen and so further enquiries were made. When Maden was told that the Alka Seltzer was stolen, he asked if the police had a search warrant. After a conversation with his solicitors the police were permitted to take possessior of the tablets. There were 46 cartons which were placed into a box in front of Maden Kansal. He signed the officer's notebook as a receipt for the goods, but added the word "unchecked", and only after the cartons were recounted in his presence did he sign without qualifiction as required. His explanation of this conduct was that he had not seen the original counting of the goods and for that reason added the word "unchecked".
When the officers searched the warehouse on the first occasion, they obtained from Raj Kansal delivery notes in respect of recent deliveries. There were no delivery notes in respect of Watts's lorry. These delivery notes were found in the cab of the abandoned lorry.
The evidence against Gupta was that he told the police that Watts gave him the delivery notes to enable buyers to see what was in his lorry. These delivery notes were directed to, and contained the names of, the proper consignees. Gupta went on to say that he took the notes to Raviraj, who told him to tell Watts that the deal was on. Later, at about 5 p.m. the same day, Watts returned with his lorry, and Gupta unloaded the goods, and Raviraj gave him an envelope to give to Watts. When Watts was arrested the same night, there was £600 in £20 notes in his home.
As we have already stated, the delivery notes were made out to numerous different suppliers and none of them were made out to the Kansals. The Crown's contention, with which the applicant Raviraj agreed, was that anyone who saw the delivery notes could tell at a glance that the goods to which they related must be stolen goods.
When Raviraj was interviewed and told by the police that Gupta had implicated him, he looked at the floor and said nothing for some time. Gupta repeated his story in front of Raviraj, and when he was accused Raviraj turned away and looked at the floor. Later he replied "no comment" when asked if Gupta was correct. Asked again if Gupta was telling the truth, according to the police he nodded his head. He further...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Schellenberg v Tunnel Holdings Pty Ltd
...JJ; 74 ALR 219; R v Bellamy [1981] 2 NSWLR 727 at 731 per Street CJ (with whom Maxwell J agreed), 733 per Reynolds JA; Raviraj (1986) 85 Cr App R 93 at 103. See also Weissensteiner v The Queen (1993) 178 CLR 217 at 244 where Gaudron and McHugh JJ discuss generally that category of cases whi......
- Petty v R
-
Mapp and Bissoon v The State
...from being reversed on the ground that there was an error in the making of the jury panel. In support of his submissions counsel cited R v. Raviraj (1986) 85 Cr App Rep 93. 47 He submitted further that in the instant case, the irregularity of the contaminated juror was discovered before the......
- Weissensteiner v R