Robert CHARLES ANGEL
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE |
| Judgment Date | 15 March 1968 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1968] EWCA Crim J0315-1 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
| Docket Number | No. 6025/67 |
| Date | 15 March 1968 |
[1968] EWCA Crim J0315-1
The Lord Chief Justice of England (Lord Parker)
Lord Justice Winn
and
Mr. Justice Ashworth
No. 6025/67
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
MR. G. COLES appeared as Counsel for the Appellant.
MR. J. DEBY appeared as Counsel for the Crown.
At York Assizes last November this appellant pleaded guilty to one count of gross indecency and two counts of buggery of a boy of 9, two other offences of gross indecency with the same boy were taken into consideration, and he was sentenced to a total of 4- years' imprisonment. It will be seen that he pleaded guilty to these offences. He was a man of 59, the boy was a boy of 9 and the sentence was thoroughly deserved. But there is a point of law involved here upon which the appellant has a right of appeal, and that is that Section 8 of the Sexual Offences Act 1967 provides mandatorily: "No proceedings shall be instituted except by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions against any man for the offence of buggery with, or gross indecency with, another man … where either of those men was at the time of its commission under the age of 21".
In fact it has been ascertained that the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions was not obtained, and in the result the whole of the trial, including the committal proceedings, has been a complete nullity, having been instituted without that necessary consent. In the result, the Court has no alternative but to quash the conviction on the ground that the trial was a complete nullity, and accordingly will allow the appeal for that purpose. It follows that the prisoner must be discharged, and the Court will communicate with the prison to see that that is done.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Attorney-General, Eastern Cape v Blom and Others
...institution of the prosecution (in terms of s 64). S v Thwala 1970 (4) SA 283 (T); S v Mngomezulu 1967 (1) PH H174 (N); cf R v Angel [1968] 2 All ER 607 (CA); Secretary of State for J Defence v Warn [1968] 2 All ER 300 (HL) at 303e. 1988 (4) SA p658 A (c) Costs: An order as to costs was sou......
-
Seal v Chief Constable of South Wales Police
...of commencing criminal proceedings without the necessary consent was other than to render those proceedings a nullity see e.g. R v Angel [1968] 1 WLR 669 where the failure to obtain the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions to a prosecution under s8 of the Sexual Offences Act 1967 ......
-
N v Secretary of State for the Home Department
...of argument that proceedings brought without the required leave were a nullity. 14. Ex p Griffiths did not stand alone. In R v Angel [1968] 1 WLR 669 the defendant had been convicted of a sexual offence for which, by s. 8 of the Sexual Offences Act 1967, "No proceedings shall be instituted ......
-
R v Clarke (Ronald Augustus) and McDaid
...and civil proceedings–Lord Woolf at para 34 and Baroness Hale at para 51. Neither questioned the correctness of cases like R v Angel [1968] 1 WLR 669 where criminal proceedings for a sexual offence brought without the required consent of the DPP were held to be a complete nullity notwithst......
-
Consenting to Prosecutions: The Legal Consequences of Non-compliance With the Requirement
...led to the quashing of any subse-quent conviction. Various authorities were invoked in support, including the decisions in R v Angel[1968] 1 WLR 669 and R v Pearce (1981) 72 Cr App R 295. In the former, the defendant, a59-year-old man, had pleaded guilty to one count of gross indecency and ......
-
Consenting to Prosecutions: The Legal Consequences of Non-compliance With the Requirement
...led to the quashing of any subse-quent conviction. Various authorities were invoked in support, including the decisions in R v Angel[1968] 1 WLR 669 and R v Pearce (1981) 72 Cr App R 295. In the former, the defendant, a59-year-old man, had pleaded guilty to one count of gross indecency and ......