R v Toney
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 December 1992 |
| Date | 01 December 1992 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
Crime - Common law offence - Attempt to pervert course of justice - Interference with witness - Whether distinction between bribery and pressure by bribery - Whether use of unlawful means essential ingredient of offence
The appellant in the first case was charged with doing an act tending and intended to pervert the course of public justice in that he attempted to persuade a witness, who was to give evidence at the forthcoming trial of the appellant's brother, to alter his evidence. A submission of no case to answer was made at the close of the prosecution case on the basis that there was no evidence of any bribe or threat or improper pressure of any kind brought to bear on the witness. The recorder rejected the submission, ruling that, with a proper direction, the jury might conclude that they were entitled on the evidence to draw the inference that the appellant had the necessary intention and that what he said did produce a situation from which injustice might have resulted. The appellant was convicted.
The appellant in the second case was originally charged with assault. He conducted negotiations with the victim of the assault through intermediaries with a view to getting the assault charge dropped in return for the provision of a car or a sum of money. He was charged with conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. At his trial he submitted that in the absence of pressure over and above any bribery there was no case to go to the jury. The judge ruled against the submission, whereupon he pleaded guilty and was convicted.
On appeal by the appellants in both cases: —
Held, (1) dismissing the appeal in the first case, that although in the majority of cases where a defendant was doing an act tending or intended to pervert the course of justice by interfering with a witness the actus reus would be accompanied by unlawful means such as bribery, threats or unlawful pressure, the use of such unlawful means was not an essential ingredient of the offence; and that, accordingly, even though there was no evidence of the use of unlawful means by the defendant to persuade the witness to alter his evidence, the trial judge had correctly ruled that there was a case to go to the jury (post, p. 370B–C, D–E).
(2) Dismissing the appeal in the second case, that there was no distinction to be drawn between bribery and pressure by bribery and that, accordingly, the judge's ruling was correct (post, p. 372D–E).
Per curiam. Where a defendant might otherwise have a defence of lawful excuse he will nevertheless be liable if he employs unlawful means which, in this context, include a threat to do an otherwise lawful act or to exercise a legal right (post, p. 370C–D).
The following cases are referred to in the judgment:
Reg. v. Kellett [
Rex v. Bishop of Lincoln (
The following additional cases were cited in argument:
Reg. v. Britton [
Reg. v. Machin [
Reg. v. Murray (Gordon) [
Reg. v. Rowell [
Reg. v. Thomas (Derek) [
Reg. v. Vreones [
Reg. v. Williams (Kevin) (
Rex v. Greenburg (
The appellant, Ivan Toney, was convicted by a majority of 10 to 2 on 30 April 1991 in the Crown Court at Northampton, before Mr. Recorder Matthews and a jury, of doing an act tending and intended to pervert the course of public justice. On 16 May 1991 he was sentenced to 150 hours of community service. He appealed against conviction on the grounds that (1) at the conclusion of the prosecution case the recorder had erred in law in ruling on the legal ingredients of the offence that the prosecution had to prove: “(i) that the defendant had no intention to pervert the course of justice — that he intended [the witness] should give different evidence; (ii) and that what he did had a tendency to that effect; that what he did produced a risk that injustice might result;” the case fell into the category of direct interference with a witness, and therefore the principle in Reg. v. Kellett [
The facts are stated in the judgment.
The appellant, Tanveer Ali, was convicted on 15 January 1992 in the Crown Court at Durham, before Judge MacMurray and a jury, of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. He appealed against conviction on the ground that the judge erred in law in ruling that an offer by a defendant of money or money's worth made to a witness in exchange for his agreeing not to give evidence in forthcoming proceedings against that defendant is, without further pressure, necessarily an improper means of interference with that witness, and so constitutes an act tending to pervert the course of public justice. The appeals were heard together.
Andrew Wheeler, assigned by the Registrar of Criminal Appeals, for the appellant, Toney.
Peter Haynes, who did not appear at trial, for the Crown.
Richard Lowder, assigned by the Registrar of Criminal Appeals, for the appellant, Ali.
Robert Woodcock for the Crown.
LLOYD L.J. gave the following judgment of the court. We are giving judgment in these two appeals together since they both involve consideration of Reg. v. Kellett [
The appellant in the first case is Ivan Toney. He was convicted on 30 April 1991 in the Crown Court at Northampton by a majority of 10 to 2 of doing an act tending and intended to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Inghams Enterprises Pty Ltd v Timania Pty Ltd(40)
-
Michael Lynch v Government of the United States of America
...for a defendant to be guilty of perverting: Sharpe and Stringer (1938) 26 Cr App R 122; Wilde [1960] Crim LR 116; R v Rafique [1993] QB 843; R v T [2011] EWCA Crim 729. Nor does it require that the defendant was aware of the particular investigation in question or its scope: USA v Dempsey......
- Clarkson v the Mandarin Club Ltd
-
R (on the application of the Crown Prosecution Service) v Registrar General of Births, Deaths and Marriages
...of ways. It does not require proof of threats, bribery, improper pressure or the deployment of other unlawful means: Toney and Ali (1973) 97 CrAppR 176. It is possible for a person to commit the offence (assuming the necessary mens rea) simply by not attending to give evidence: Bassi CACD, ......