R v Saunders

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
JudgeTHE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE
Judgment Date12 October 1973
Judgment citation (vLex)[1973] EWCA Crim J1012-1
CourtCourt of Appeal (Criminal Division)
Docket NumberNo. 4000/B/73
Date12 October 1973
The Queen
and
Arthur John Saunders

[1973] EWCA Crim J1012-1

Before:-

The Lord Chief Justice of England (Lord Widgery)

Lord Justice James

and

Mr. Justice Geoffrey Lane

No. 4000/B/73

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

CRIMINAL DIVISION

Royal Courts of Justice

MR. A. MYERSON, Q.C. and MR. D. FINGLETON appeared as Counsel for the Appellant.

MR. J. MATHEW appeared as Counsel for the Crown.

THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE
1

This matter comes before the Court on a reference dated 30th August 1973 from the Secretary of State for Home Affairs under Section 17, subsection 1(a) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968. It relates to the conviction on the 7th November 1970 of the present Appellant, as he becomes by virtue of the reference, Saunders, on two matters at the Central Criminal Court, one of conspiracy to rob and one of robbery. Having been convicted on those two counts, he was sentenced to fifteen years and ten years concurrent, fifteen years in all. He appealed against that conviction to this Court, and his Appeal was heard on the 16th December 1971. As I will demonstrate in a moment, the Appeal was on one very narrow ground, and it was dismissed and nothing further occurred thereafter.

2

The present reference is inspired by a petition from the Appellant based largely on fresh evidence which the Court has admitted, by one Smalls, who was not available to give evidence at the trial.

3

One should start with at any rate a brief review of the circumstances in which these convictions were entered. There was on the 9th February 1970 a very well organised bank robbery at Ilford. I use the words "bank robbery" in the general sense, because the robbery was actually directed to the moment when cash was being delivered to the bank at Ilford, and the now unfortunately all too familiar pattern of an attack upon those who had custody of the money took place by a substantial number of men who were armed, and who were obviously acting in accordance with the previous plan.

4

Saunders was not the only man who was arrested, tried and convicted of this offence in 1970. There were in fact some eight others who were concerned at that time, but Smalls, to whom I have already briefly referred, was not one of those charged. The robbery took place, and a few days after the robbery occurred, the police went to Saunders' house. There was no identification of him as being one of those persons present at the robbery, but the police, pursuing their normal investigation practice, called on Saunders to ask him some questions. He was out, and having heard that there was a police call he then disappeared and he was not seen by the police until he was apprehended some three months later, on the 9th May, 1970.

5

Meanwhile Saunders had seen his Solicitors and had left them a sealed document to be opened in the event of his arrest, and one understands that the substance of what that document contained was a statement by Saunders that if he was arrested, he wished his Solicitors to be available to assist him from the earliest moment, and did not intend to assist the police with their enquiries unless and until his Solicitor had been made available.

6

Having been arrested on the 9th May he was interviewed by a senior police officer, and conversations which obviously played a considerable part in the Prosecution case took place. According to the police officers, when Saunders was arrested he said "All right, I won't give you any trouble. You've got me. It had to come. I know you blokes don't give up". He was searched and asked whether he knew what it, that is to say the enquiry, was all about. He said "Yes, that Ilford job. What else?". This, of course, is the account of the conversation as spoken to by the police at the trial. He asked for an opportunity to speak to his Solicitor, and when cautioned, that is to say when given a formal caution, he said "Leave it out. Anything I am going to say I have already said. I have deposited a statement with my Solicitor about this matter". He was asked about the sum of some £1100 which had been found in his house, and also about a valuable ring which was found there, and he gave an explanation that he had what he described as "fabulous luck on the horses", and the product of that fabulous luck had been sufficient to provide him with this money and these valuables.

7

The interview continued. Police Superintendent Wickstead said "Do you know any of these names", then proceeded to rehearse some of the names the police thought were involved in the Ilford robbery. He said "Mickey Green"; Saunders said "Don't you know?", Wickstead said "Well, that's no answer". Saunders said "What do you want me to do - put them all in it?". Wickstead said "By 'all' do you mean", then he rehearsed a large number of names of people suspected by the Police, to which Saunders replied "I didn't know there were as many as that".

8

Then after further questions, which I do not think I need read in detail, there comes another significant passage. After something Saunders had said, Wickstead said "Does that mean you were there?". Saunders said "There is not much point in saying no, is there". Wickstead: "Did you have one of the shot guns or the ammonia sprays?". Saunders: "No, I didn't". Wickstead: "So what did you do? Were you driving one of the vehicles, were you a lookout or what?". Saunders: "Whatever I was doing I didn't have a shooter". Wickstead: "Were you present at Green's flat at 139A Burnt Oak Broadway, when this was planned?". Saunders: "Look, I didn't put this up and I didn't organise it so don't make me out the brains. Besides, you can't fit me up for that part of it: I shall say I don't even know where Edgware is". Wickstead: "When you were detained by D/Sgt. Stevens about £1,200 was found by him in your place and in your possession. Where did it come from?". Saunders: "I can't say that. I might want to claim it back some day." Wickstead: "Did it come from the Ilford Bank robbery?". Saunders: "You can't expect me to answer that".

9

I have said enough, I think, to indicate that in the course of this interview as recounted by Police Superintendent Wickstead, one does not find Saunders positively admitting that he had anything to do with the Ilford Bank robbery; on the other hand there is a noticeable absence of any positive denial of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • Mohamed Din v PP
    • Malaysia
    • High Court (Malaysia)
    • 1 Enero 1985
  • R v Erskine; R v Williams
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
    • 14 Julio 2009
    ...the Court. 7 The powers under this sub-section were used in Stafford & Luvaglio (No. 2) (1972) 57 Cr. App. R. 203 and in Saunders (1973) 58 Cr. App. R. 248, but have rarely been used since then. In the present appeals, although it was clear that there were differences in the opinions of th......
  • R v Andrew James Clarke and Another
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
    • 9 Febrero 2017
    ...of utilising the procedure: see paragraphs 7–10 "7 The powers under this subsection were used in R v Stafford [1972] 1 WLR 1649 and in R v Saunders (1973) 58 Cr App R 248, but have rarely been used since then. In the present appeals, although it was clear that there were differences in the ......
  • Frederick v The Queen
    • St Lucia
    • Court of Appeal (Saint Lucia)
    • 25 Marzo 2009
    ...R. v. Graham; R. v. Kansal; R. v. Ali (Sajid); R. v. Marsh and ors [1997] 1 Cr. App. R. 302, CA. As to time since the offence, see also R. v. Saunders, 58 Cr. App. R. 248 (retrial not ordered having regard to delay of three-and-a-half years and fact that appellant had been in prison for a ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT