Recent Judicial Decisions
| DOI | 10.1177/0032258X7304600308 |
| Date | 01 July 1973 |
| Author | J. C. Wood |
| Published date | 01 July 1973 |
| 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
CAUTIOUS BEHAVIOUR
Osbourne and Virtue, the two appellants in this case, were tried
at the Central Criminal Court with others on several counts arising
out of a gang robbery at the Co-operative Store in High Street,
Penge. They were found guilty on several of these counts. They
were both sentenced to periods of imprisonment and they appealed.
The basis of the appeals was a challenge as to the admissibility of
some of the evidence.
In his judgment Lawton, L.J., set out the facts of the robbery.
He also indicated the circumstances of the arrest of each appellant
and in particular the questions asked and answers given. Osbourne
was arrested in a house where the police arrived with a search
warrant. They found some £265 in notes and Osbourne, who was
known to be a professional gambler, said they were obtained by
gambling. A black
hat
was also found which somewhat upset
Osbourne who admitted it was his. The Court of Appeal felt that
a summary of the situation would be that Osbourne told obvious
lies, denied complicity in the crime and explained possession of
the notes as the result of gambling.
Virtue's arrest followed his release from Pentonville prison. He
was arrested at the prison gates. Before he was released he had
been on a scheme of rehabilitation enabling him to live outside the
prison. He was searched but had only a small sum of money in
his possession.
Both the accused were taken to a police station in South London
and interrogated by the chief inspector in charge of the robbery
investigation. They were not cautioned and it was claimed on the
appellant's behalf that this lack of a caution rendered evidence
of the interrogators inadmissible. The police concerned admitted
at the trial that they
had
reasonable grounds for suspecting the
appellants but they felt that they had no evidence to justify this
suspicion.
An identification parade followed. The defendants had a solicitor
present and the rules as to parades were adhered to. The witnesses
produced differing results. Some identified no-one, others picked
out one or two. As a result of these actions Osbourne and Virtue
were charged. At the trial more than some seven months later one
witness could not remember picking anyone out at the parade,
another gave conflicting evidence and was plainly very nervous.
July 1973 260
To continue reading
Request your trial