Stupple v Royal Insurance Company Ltd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS,LORD JUSTICE WINN,LORD JUSTICE BUCKLEY |
| Judgment Date | 03 July 1970 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1970] EWCA Civ J0703-1 |
| Date | 03 July 1970 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
[1970] EWCA Civ J0703-1
In The Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal
(Civil Division)
From: Mr Justice Paull (Q.B.D., London).
The Master of The Rolls (Lord Denning)
Lord Justice Winn
and
Lord Justice Buckley
Mr Lewis Hawser, Q.C. and Mrs Barbara Calvert (instrueted by Messrs. B.M. Bimberg & Co., S.E.1) appeared on behalf of the Appellants (Plaintiffs).
Mr John May, Q.C. and Mr E.A. Machin (instructed by Messrs. Hair & Co., E.C.3, Agents for Messrs. Bracher Son & Miskin, Maidstone) appeared on behalf of the Respondents (Defendants)
On Friday, 27th September, 1963, near Longfield, in Kent, a gang of robbers laid in wait for a bullion van. It was about mid-day. They had come down from London in convoy. They were in a Land Bover, a Dormobile and a lorry. All three vehicles had recently been stolen. Whilstwaiting for tiie bullion van, they went on; to a village green and kicked a ball about. It was a red plastic ball. The local folk saw them. Soon afterwards the gang left. They got themselves ready. They had iron bars in their hands. One had an Indian club. They ambushed the bullion van. They must have known its movements. It belonged to Martins Bank and had been round the branches collecting money. One was the branch at Welling. The robbers stopped the van and overcame the driver and guard. They stole 87,300.10s., and went off.
Four days later, on Tuesday, 1st October, 1963, police officers went to a house in East London, where there lived Mr William John Stupple and his wife. He was only 35, but he had a criminal record, including stealing and taking motor vans. His last serious conviction had been in 1956, when he was sentenced to five years imprisonment for two cases of stealing from the person 800 and 900. But he had not been in much trouble since.
It was very early in the morning when the police went to the house. Mr and Mrs Stupple were still abed. The police officers had a warrant to search the house for the stolen notes, They went into the bedroom and found, on the dressing table, two rolls of money, one for 500 in 5 notes, the other for 200 in 5 notes. One of the police officers asked him: "How did you come to have that much money?". Mr Stupple replied: "I always carry it for trading". The police officer asked: "What is your job?". He said: "A wholesaler". "What sort of wholesaler?". "General wholesaler". "What do you deal in?". "Anything". "Have you any more money in the house?". "Yes". Stupple went to the wardrobe and took out a bag. In it was another bag, and in that bag yet another bag. It contained 250 in 5 notes. The police officers next found a lady's handbag. It contained 65 in 5 notes. Mrs Stupple said it belonged to her. Mr Stupple had 35.10s. in his trousers pocket. The police took all the money. It came to1,050.10s. Mr Stupple asked for it to be put in a parcel and sealed up. He explained why. He was afraid that the police might "plant" other notes among them so as to incriminate him. He said: "I do not want you putting any of your notes in them so the Bank can identify them. I want them sealed so it is opened when my solicitor is present". This mention of "the Bank" came first from Mr Stupple. The police officers had not mentioned it. Mr Stupple wrapped the notes up in a parcel and stuck it up with Sellotape. The police officers took it away. They also went into another bedroom. In it they found a red plastic ball. Was it the ball with which the robbers were playing on the Friday before? That would be guessing: and lawyers must not guess, at any rate not in a criminal case.
The bank notes were examined. Some of them had figures written on them. Cashiers in banks often put bank notes into bundles, and write on the top note the number in the bundle. Fifty-three of the notes had handwritten numbers on them. The police got into touch with the cashiers of all the banks at which the bullion van had called on that Friday. On the very next day they showed them to one of the permanent cashiers at the Welling bank, a Mr Ford. He identified five of the notes as having his figures on them. He said that on Tuesday, 24th September, he had made up bundles to go off when the bullion van called: and these would have gone on to the van. Later on the police saw the relief cashiers who had worked at elling during the previous weeks. One of them, Mr Richardson, had been on temporary duty at the Welling branch on several days in September. He identified four of the notes as being marked by him. Another cashier, Mr Collins, who had been on relief duty at the Welling branch for three days in August, identified one of them as being his.
On this evidence the police felt justified in charging Mr Stupple. On 20 February, 1964, he was indicted with other menat the Kent Assizes at Maidstone before Mr Justice Thesiger and a Jury. The trial lasted for 4½ weeks. Stupple put forward an alibi. He had not mentioned it before the trial. (There was, at that time, no obligation on him to do so). He said that on Friday, 27 September, 1963, he was at a cafe in the Old Kent Road about 200 yards from his home. He had his office on the first floor. He said he was in the cafe with his cousin, Mr Allpress. The cafe proprietor was a Mr Cappuccini. A pin-table machine had gone wrong. Mr Stupple said he had spent all the morning repairing it. It took him until 12.45 p.m. So he could not have been at Longfield at 12.10 p.m. when the van was ambushed. Although Mr Stupple said that he was in the cafe with his cousin, Mr Allpress, he did not manage to get Mr Allpress to give evidence for him at the criminal trial. Small wonder. Mr Allpress was a known criminal who was fearful of being arrested. He was convicted a little later for another bank robbery and sentenced to fifteen years. Nor did Mr Stupple call Mr Cappuccini to support his alibi. He called Mrs Cappuccini, and his cousin Mr John Stupple (big John), a Mr Forsyth, a docker, and a Mr Farrow, aegreengrocer.
In addition to the alibi, Mr Stupple gave his explanation of the money. He said that 380 of it was money belonging to him and Mr Allpress jointly: and that Mr Allpress had given it to him the night before. Also that 320 of it came from the sale of two machines to a Mr Coombes (which he had changed at the Bank the day before); and that 230 in the wardrobe belonged to Mrs Stupple.
Such being the nature of the evidence submitted to the Jury, Mr Justice Thesiger summed up. On 19 March, 1964, Stupple was convicted of armed robbery and sentenced to fifteen years imprisonment. The certificate of conviction is of importance. It was as follows:
"These are to certify that at the Assizes and General Gaol Delivery of our lady the Queen holden at Maids tone in and for the County of Kent on Thursday, the nineteenth day of March in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and sixty-four
William John Stupple was in due form of law tried and convicted upon indictment for that he on the 27th day of September, 1963, in the County of Kent together with other persons unknown being armed with offensive weapons, namely, iron bars, Indian Club, pickaxe handles, sticks and bricks robbed Albert Leslie Henry Thome of 87,300.10s. and six suitcases.
It was thereupon ordered by the Court that the said William John Stupple be imprisoned for fifteen years".
Three other men named Shaw, Curbishley and Hall were convicted at the same time. All applied for leave to appeal from the conviction. On 13 May, 1964, their applications were refused. As to Stupple, the Lord Chief Justice said:
"The Court has considered the arguments put forward; they have come to the conclusion that there was evidence here which would enable the Jury properly directed to find and feel sure that Stupple was a robber, and having considered the Judge's direction and the whole summing-up they feel that the matter was properly left to the Jury"
On 23 July, 1964, the police applied to the Magistrates at Dartford for an order for the disposal of the money found in Stupple's house. By this time the Bank had been indemnified by the Royal Insurance Company, who had paid them the full 87,300.10s. which had been stolen. The Magistrates ordered that the 65 found in Mrs Stupple's handbag be returned to her: but that the money found on the dressing table (700) and in the wardrobe (250) and on Stupple himself (35.10s.) be paid to the Royal Insurance Company. This order was made under the Police Property Act, 1897. The money was paid over to the Royal Insurance Company. Under the Act, Mr and Mrs Stupple had six months in which to claim it back: but, in any such claim, the burden would be on them to prove that they were the lawful owners: see ( Irving v. National Provincial Bank 1962, 2 Q.B., 73).
Each took proceedings within the six months. On 11 January, 1965, Mrs Stupple claimed 230 from the Royal Insurance Company, being the money in the wardrobe which she said was hers. On 20 January, 1965, Mr Stupple claimed 755.10s. from the Royal Insurance Company, being the money on the dressing table and in his pocket. The Royal Insurance Company defended on the ground that the money had been stolen from the bullion van. They took an assignment from the Bank and gave notice of the assignment to Mr Stupple. They counterclaimed against Mr Stupple 87,300.10s. as damages for conversion.
If the cases had come on for trial within the next three or four years, they would have had to be fought out without regard to the fact that Mr Stupple had been convicted of the robbery. The law then was that the conviction was not admissible in evidence in the civil proceedings: see ( Hollington v. F. Hewthorn & Co. Ltd. 1943 K.B., 587). But in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ong Bee Nah v Won Siew Wan (Yong Tian Choy, Third Party)
...[2000] 2 SLR (R) 745; [2000] 3 SLR 609 (refd) Ramanathan Chelliah v Penyunting [1998] 2 CLJ 691 (folld) Stupple v Royal Insurance Co Ltd [1971] 1 QB 50 (folld) Tan Bernice Amelia v Loh Chee Song [2000] SGHC 197 (distd) Truscott v McLaren [1982] RTR 34 (refd) Walsh v Redfern [1970] RTR 201 (......
-
Bland v Morris
...it unless the contrary is proved. The interpretation of these provisions has been the subject of some judicial differences. In Stupple v Royal Insurance Co [1971] 1 Q.B.50 at 72 Lord Denning M.R. held that a relevant conviction did not merely shift the burden of proof but was a 'weighty pie......
-
Patrick Thompson and Another v Dean Thompson and Others
...is not evidence of liability against him in subsequent civil proceedings. For this submission, Mrs Jordan also referred us to Stupple v Royal Insurance Co. Ltd [1971] 1 QB 50 and the more recent decision of this court in Danny McNamee v Shields Enterprises Ltd [2010] JMCA Civ 37. 22 Mr Mann......
-
R v Singh et Al
...The jury must subconsciously have had in mind the thinking which runs through what Lord Denning, M.R. said in the civil case of Stupple v. Royal Insurance Co. Ltd, [1970] 3 All E.R. 230, “Hot money travels fast, but usually into the hands of those who have helped to get it.” As with hot mo......
-
Standards of Proof in Civil Litigation
...more40 [1956] 3 All ER 970.41 ibid, 973.42 ibid 977.43 ibid 978.44 See the comments of Lord Denning in Stupple vRoyal Insurance Co [1971] 1 QB 50, 72.45 See, for example, the comments of Patteson J in Doe d Devine vWilson (1855) 10 Moo PC 501, 531:‘[t]he jury must weigh the conflicting evid......
-
Civil ‘Relitigation’ of a Criminal Conviction
...of itself, afterconsidering arguments for each position put forward before the Court ofAppeal in Stupple v Royal Insurance Co. Ltd [1971] 1 QB 50, Spencer J heldthe conviction to be ‘weighty evidence’ (at [39]). This means any caseswhere the new evidence is weak will be handled With respect......