Recent Judicial Decisions
| DOI | 10.1177/0032258X3801100302 |
| Date | 01 July 1938 |
| Published date | 01 July 1938 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
Recent Judicial Decisions
OBSTRUCTING THE COURSE OF JUSTICE
R.
v. Sharpe and
R.
v. Stringer
THE Court of Criminal Appeal (Lord Hewart, L.C.J.,
Hum-
phreys and du Parcq,
JJ.)
dismissed the appeals of Sharpe
and Stringer from conviction by Charles, J., at Lewes Assizes.
The
case first came before the Magistrates at Chichester,
who refused to commit the prisoners for trial. An application
was thereupon made to the judge in chambers to prefer a
voluntary bill of indictment, which application was granted.
The
facts of
the
case were as follows:
On August 28th, Sharpe and Stringer were on their way
to a dance with aparty of friends in a procession of cars.
Sharpe was leading, and Stringer following him. On arrival
Stringer
said"
The
hood-cover has come off the hood. I
think we have hit something." (His car had in fact struck
and
injured a cyclist.)
He
called Sharpe aside and
the
two
had
a
conversation. Sharpe and Stringer
then
agreed together to tell
astory which would refute any charge
that
Stringer's car was
concerned in
the
accident.
Upon
police investigation they
maintained this story, and further persuaded another man,
Osborn, to make a statement corroborating it.
At
the
trial Counsel for Stringer moved to quash
the
indictment on three grounds, (a)
that
all
the
facts were not
before
the
Judge when he gave leave for
the
bill of indictment
to be preferred,
(b)
that
the rules
under
the
Administration of
Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1933, s. 2 were
not
strictly complied with by
the
application or the bill,
(c)
that
the indictment disclosed no offence known to the law.
Charles, J., overruled these objections.
Upon
the
question
that
the
indictment disclosed no offence known to
the
law, he
held
that
the indictment disclosed
the
offence of a criminal
conspiracy.
266
RECENT
JUDICIAL
DECISIONS
267
The
indictment, as amended, came before the Court as
follows:
" Conspiracy to defeat the ends of justice; Reginald
Audley Stringer and Percy Ogden Sharpe between August
28th, 1937, and September
jrd,
1937, in the county of Sussex,
conspired together and with Alfred John Osborn and with
other persons unknown to defeat the ends of public justice by
concealing and destroying evidence of the commission of a
crime by attempting to suborn the said Alfred John Osborn to
give perjured evidence in accordance with the said conceal-
ment, and by attempting to mislead police officers then in-
vestigating the said crime by statements which they knew to be
untrue."
The
appellants pleaded guilty and were sentenced to
3 and 4 months' imprisonment respectively. They subse-
quently appealed to the Court of Criminal Appeal against
conviction, on the ground that they had pleaded guilty to an
indictment which, as amended, disclosed no offence known
to the law.
Du
Parcq, J. (delivering the judgment of the
Court), said:
"These appellants . . . pleaded guilty before Charles,
J., at the Lewes Assizes to an indictment charging them, to
put
it quite shortly, with conspiracy to defeat the ends of justice.
Sharpe was sentenced to 3 months, Stringer to 4 months, both
in the second division. They now appeal against conviction.
. . . There was a lengthy argument before the Judge as to
whether that indictment disclosed any offence known to the
law.
The
judge decided that it did, and, after that argument
and that decision, the defendants pleaded guilty to an amended
indictment. . . .
The
question which now comes before this
Court is whether that indictment so amended, disclosed an
offence known to the law.
If
it did not, then no doubt the
appellants, though they pleaded guilty, might be entitled to
have their convictions quashed. But, if it does disclose an
offence known to the law, then they must stand by the pleas of
guilty, and, in that event, it must be known that they com-
mitted the offence.
The
question for this Court, therefore, is
To continue reading
Request your trial