Recent Judicial Decisions
| DOI | 10.1177/0032258X7604900410 |
| Date | 01 October 1976 |
| Author | J. C. Wood |
| Published date | 01 October 1976 |
| Subject Matter | Recent Judicial Decisions |
PROFESSOR
1.
C.
WOOD,
C.B.E.,
LL.M.
The
University of Sheffield,
Legal Correspondent of
The
Police Journal
RECENT JUDICIAL DECISIONS
CHERRY BITTEN TWICE
R.
v.
Humphrys
[1976] 2 W.L.R. 857 House of Lords
Humphrys was disqualified from driving. He was charged with
driving whilst disqualified. A police officer stopped aperson, he
said was Humphrys, riding a motor cycle on July 18, 1972. The
rider said he was Brian Scott.
It
appears that at this time there was
aBrian Scott lodging with Humphrys. At his trial Humphrys said
dogmatically that he had not driven a vehicle on a public road
during 1972. He was acquitted. The reason for this acquittal seems
to be that the jury did not feel it safe to accept the challenged
evidence of the police officer.
Over a year later Humphrys appeared on an indictment charging
three offences. He pleaded guilty to the first two - obtaining £60
by the deception of pretending to be Brian Edward Scott and
forgery. The forgery arose from his action two days after his
apparently being stopped on the Triumph motor cycle, in pre-
paring an application to relicense a Triumph motor cycle in the
name of Brian Scott.
The third court alleged that at his earlier trial he had committed
perjury by saying that he had not driven a vehicle on a public
road during 1972. On this count, at his trial, the prosecution
called neighbours who gave evidence that as far as they knew
there was no lodger at Humphrys' house. There was a motor
cycle there and two of the witnesses gave evidence of seeing him
riding it. The prosecution then wished to call the police officer
on whose evidence the charge in July 1972 had been based. Ob-
jectiou was made to this it being argued that the evidence was in-
admissible but this was overruled by the trial judge. Humphrys
was convicted on the perjury count and sentenced on that to nine
months' imprisonment.
An
appeal was allowed by the Court of
Appeal and the prosecution was allowed to appeal to the House of
Lords, the point of law being one of general public importance.
The point was expressed as follows:
"Where in a trial on indictment there is a single issue between
prosecution and defence and the defendant is acquitted, is evi-
dence tending to show that the defendant was guilty of that
offence admissible in a subsequent prosecution of the defendant
for perjury committed during the first
trial?"
In other words the question was whether the police officer, having
October 1976 307
To continue reading
Request your trial