R v Thorne (John)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE LAWTON |
| Judgment Date | 01 June 1977 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1977] EWCA Crim J0601-1 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
| Docket Number | Nos. 23/R/76, 147/R/76, 186/R/76, 143/R/76, 125/R/76, 121/R/76, 146/R/76, 148/R/76 and 149/R/76 |
| Date | 01 June 1977 |
[1977] EWCA Crim J0601-1
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Lord Justice Lawton
Lord Justice Cumming-Bruce
and
Mr. Justice Griffiths
Nos. 23/R/76, 147/R/76, 186/R/76, 143/R/76, 125/R/76, 121/R/76, 146/R/76, 148/R/76 and 149/R/76
MR. LLOYD-ELEY, Q.C. and MR. A. NEWMAN appeared on behalf of the Applicant Thorne.
MR. Q. EDWARDS, Q.C. and MR. K. WINSTAIN appeared on behalf of the Applicants J.P. Stevens, S.A. Stevens and Bloomfield.
MR. M. WEST, Q.C. and MR. B. BARKER appeared on behalf of the Applicant Smith.
MR. L.S. SHIELDS. Q.C. and MR. A.R. DAVIES appeared on behalf of Applicant Cook.
MR. I. GOLDSWORTHY appeared on behalf of the Applicant Gibson.
MR. H.GODFREY appeared on behalf of the Applicant Marks.
MR. A. Jones appeared on behalf of the Applicant Arif.
MR. M. HILL and MR. T. CASSEL appeared on behalf of the Crown.
On 11th December 1975, at the Central Criminal Court, after a trial before His Honour Judge Gillis lasting 111 days, these applicants were convicted as follows: Thorne of two counts or robbery and on two counts of conspiracy to rob; Smith of two counts of robbery and one count of conspiracy to rob; Cook of two counts of robbery; Marks, Gibson and Arif on one count each of conspiracy to rob – Marks and Arif on the same count, Gibson on a different count; and Sandra Stevens and Emily Bloomfield of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. Thorne was sentenced to fifteen years' imprisonment; Stevens to twelve; Smith and Cook to fourteen; Gibson to six; and all the others to suspended sentences of two years. On the same indictment two Italians named de Palma and Antoniazzi and a man named Goulding were charged with conspiracy to rob but on different counts; a woman named Eileen Thorne, John Thorne's mother, was charged with handling stolen goods; and Jean Thorne, his wife, was charged with conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. Goulding pleaded guilty and gave evidence for the prosecution. Eileen Thorne was convicted and given a conditional discharge; Jean Thorne was acquitted on the direction of the trial Judge, de Palma and Antoniazzi on the verdict of the jury.
The applicants applied for leave to appeal against their convictions. On the hearing of the applications they were granted leave and with the consent of their counsel that hearing was treated as the hearing of the appeals.
The prosecution's case on its basic facts was fairly simple and all too familiar both to the Central Criminal Court and to this Court. On 1st June 1974, a security van was ambushed by a gang of robbers in Phoenix Way, Heston. There were at least five members of the gang, probably six. The robbers were masked and carried an assortment of weapons – shotguns, a Luger, a revolver and a sledge-hammer. They threatened to shoot one of the security guards. A pistol was fired. One guard was hit on the head with the sledge-hammer. They stole about £13,152.43. Police investigations started. On 11th June 1974, the police arrested Thorne, Stevens and Smith. They had wanted to arrest a man named O'Mahoney. He eluded them that day. On 12th June the police arrested him and his mistress, a woman named Susan Norville. On 11th June the police had searched Eileen Thorne's house. They found £870 under a mattress and £301 in a garden shed. A £1 note from under the mattress and three £1 notes from the garden shed were later identified as having been part of the stolen money.
All the arrested men were remanded in custody. Whilst in custody Stevens and Thorne, so the prosecution alleged, decided that someone must have informed against them. They suspected O'Mahoney and his mistress. So did the womenfolk. Whilst in prison Thorne and Stevens threatened O'Mahoney. Their womenfolk threatened Susan Norville and tried to persuade her not to give evidence. In this they were unsuccessful. The threats and attempts at persuasion were the basis for the count alleging conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.
After the threats which had been made against him O'Mahoney said in his evidence at the trial that he decided to tell the police what he knew about the Phoenix Way and other robberies. He did so over a period of some months. He made 6M written statements. He admitted to taking part in thirteen robberies, sixty-six burglaries and other crimes, including crimes of violence. He named about 150 persons as having taken part in the criminal enterprises with which he said he had been concerned. Amongst them were the male appellants in this case. Gibson was arrested on 9th July 1974; Arif on 24th July; Marks on 22nd October and Cook on 5th January 1975.
O'Mahoney in his statements and at the trial said that Gibson, who at the material time was employed as a security guard by a firm which supplied such guards to industrial and commercial undertakings, had given him information about wage money kept at the premises of Glynwed Bath Company at Greenford. As a result, with Thorne, Stevens and Smith he planned to rob the Glynwed Bath Company. The first plan came to nothing as they were alerted by a corrupt police officer to the fact that the police would be waiting for them. Later another plan was made and carried out on 10th May 1974. Stevens did not take part. Cook was brought in as a substitute. Those taking part were masked and armed. The weapons carried were a shotgun, an axe and a sledge-hammer. £1,193.8l was stolen. These activities were the subject matter of counts 1, 2 and 3.
According to O'Mahoney, whilst planning the Glynwed Bath Company robbery, he and others of the appellants were planning the Phoenix Way robbery and the robbery of the Allied Irish Bank Ltd. in King Street, Hammersmith. He said that he, Thorne, Stevens, Smith and Cook had taken part in the Phoenix Way robbery.
The plan to rob the Allied Irish Bank, according to O'Mahoney, had its origins in his visits to an Italian restaurant next to the bank. De Palma and Antoniazzi owned it. O'Mahoney asked questions about the bank. De Palma told him about a forgetful bank employee who left his bank keys lying around and that money was delivered to the bank on Thursdays. O'Mahoney then decided that he would get a gang together to rob this bank. He recruited Thorne, Stevens and Smith. He wanted more helpers who would carry out reconnaissance and be prepared to use force in the course of the robbery if necessary. To this end he recruited Marks and Arif. He probably recruited Marks on 20th March 1974 (which was the day when Her Royal Highness Princess Anne was held up by a gunman in The Mall) and Arif shortly before. Arif in evidence said he was approached by O'Mahoney on Mothering Sunday, that is 24th March, 1974. In evidence O'Mahoney said that on the Thursday after he had recruited Marks and Arif he arranged with them to carry out a reconnaisance of the bank. The prosecution, on the basis of O'Mahoney's statements and evidence, suggested that this was carried out on 21st March; but later in the case they suggested it was 28th March. According to O'Mahoney, Marks and Arif did keep the bank under observation but Marks told him lies about what they had seen. O'Mahoney suspected that he wanted, with the help of others, to rob the bank himself. This suggestion was reflected in count 6 of the indictment which charged Marks with conspiring with persons unknown to rob the bank. Marks was acquitted on this count on the direction of the Judge.
The defences put forward to the counts charging robbery and those charging conspiracies to rob may be summarised as follows. Thorne, Stevens and Smith in evidence denied any participation in the offences. Cook did not give evidence. Marks made a statement from the dock to the effect that he was innocent and that he had proved where he was on 21st March, 1974. The Crown conceded that he had, if 21st March really was the day upon which, according to O'Mahoney, he had kept observation with Arif on the bank; but if Arif was right in saying that an attempt to recruit him was made on 24th March, then the date was 28th March. On arrest Marks had said that O'Mahoney had tried to recruit him into the gang but he had refused to join. Arif did give evidence. He admitted that O'Mahoney had invited him to join his gang and that he had said he might be interested; but this was a polite way of saying "no". He had not kept observation with Marks. Gibson, in his evidence, admitted that he had supplied information to O'Mahoney about wage money held on the Glynwed Bath Company's premises, but a lot of it was false. He had acted as he had because he had been afraid of O'Mahoney. Although he had supplied information, he had not intended that O'Mahoney should use it; indeed he had given the false information so as to ensure that O'Mahoney would be discouraged from robbing the Glynwed Bath Company. The two female appellants denied that there had been any conspiracy. They had called on Susan Norville to clear up some marital problems Mrs. Stevens had had.
It is now necessary to say more about O'Mahoney. As he was the principal witness against all the male appellants, his credit was attacked at length at the trial. He was clearly a very dangerous criminal indeed. There was more than his record for the jury to consider. After he had told the police who had taken part with him in the Phoenix Way robbery, they appreciated that keeping him in prison on remand would present problems: he would have to be kept in solitary confinement for his own safety. Further, whilst he was in prison...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R v Edwards (John)
...the problem of other cases in which the witness had, so to speak, unsuccessfully given evidence. The result of R v Thorne (John)UNK((1977) 66 Cr App R 6) and R v Cooke (Gary)UNK ((1986) 84 Cr App R 286) seemed to be that the acquittal of a defendant in case A, where the prosecution case dep......
-
R v I-I and Others
...as November 1977, which was gradually adopted over the next ten years or so by most other Crown Courts. This court had held in Thorne (1977) 66 Cr App R 6 that a pre-trial review should take place in any complicated case. But there remained considerable uncertainty about the stage at which ......
-
R v Kellard
...The need for simplicity in the presentation of the case was echoed by Lawton L.J. in the context of the length of the indictment in R v. Thorne and Others [1978] 66 Cr.App.R. 6 (at page 12) when he said: "This Court has noticed a tendency recently for prosecuting counsel to overload indictm......
-
Attorney General v De La Chevotiere, De La Chevotiere v R
... ... DPP v KilbourneUNK (1973) 57 Cr App R 381 DPP v BoardmanUNK (1975) 60 Cr App R 165 R v Thorne and othersUNK (178) 66 Cr App R 6 R v VirgoUNK [1978] CLR 557 R v Hills Time 28 March ... ...