Surujpaul v The Queen
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judgment Date | 1958 |
| Date | 1958 |
| Court | Privy Council |
Criminal Law - Accessory before the fact - Counselling or procuring felony - Alleged principals acquitted but another found guilty as accessory - Whether verdicts inconsistent - Murder -
At the trial of the appellant together with four others on a charge of murder the case for the prosecution — that the murder was committed while the accused were carrying out a plot to steal money — rested largely on the evidence of an accomplice going to prove the existence of the plot, and there was material from which the jury might have drawn the inference that the plan was carried out by all or some of the accused, and that in the course thereof the murder was committed. The jury, however, found the appellant guilty as an accessory before the fact to murder, and his co-accused (other than one who had been discharged) not guilty either as accessories or as principals. The appellant contended that those verdicts were contradictory and inconsistent — that there could be no accessory without a principal. The Crown contended, inter alia, that as against the appellant the jury might have found something in a statement which he had made to the police which would amount, with the accomplice's evidence, to sufficient evidence and admissible against the appellant that the crime was committed by one or more of those who had been “counselled or procured” by him so to do:—
Held, allowing the appeal and quashing the conviction, that it was essential to the conviction of the appellant as accessory before the fact for the Crown to prove that he had counselled, procured or commanded one or more of the other accused to commit the murder and that such person or persons had in fact done so. In finding that murder by any one of the accused had not been proved, but that none the less the appellant was guilty of having counselled one or more of them to commit murder, and that one or more of them, unspecified, in fact committed it, the jury had, at first sight at any rate, given an inconsistent and contradictory verdict.
Although the appellant's statement might afford very strong corroboration of the accomplice's evidence with regard to the part taken by the appellant in the plot, and as to his counselling the others to commit robbery or murder, it was difficult to see how it could afford any evidence as to the actual commission of the crime at which, by their verdict, the jury had found he was not proved to have been present and assisting. A voluntary statement made by an accused person was admissible as a “confession”; he could confess as to his own acts, knowledge or intentions, but he could not “confess” as to acts of other persons which he had not seen and of which he could only have knowledge by hearsay. A failure by the prosecution to prove an essential element in the offence could not be cured by an “admission” of that nature. There was here no distinction with regard to the evidence relating to the commission of the substantive offence as between the appellant and the other accused which could justify the result arrived at.
APPEAL (No. 15 of 1958) in forma pauperis by special leave from a judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeal of British Guiana (January 8, 1958) dismissing the appellant's appeal from his conviction at the Criminal Assizes for the County of Berbice in British Guiana (July 29, 1957) of being an accessory before the fact to the murder by shooting of police constable Claude Allen on March 9, 1957. He had been sentenced to death.
The following facts are taken from the judgment of the Judicial Committee: The appellant was charged with four other men (hereinafter referred to as accused Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5) in one count with the murder of Claude Allen on March 9, 1957. At the end of the case for the prosecution accused No. 2 was on the direction of the trial judge (Phillips J.) acquitted by the jury. Owing to uncertainty as to which, if any, of the remaining accused was actually present and taking part in the murder and which, if any, might have been accessories before the fact, the jury were quite properly asked with regard to each accused whether they found him guilty or not guilty of being accessory before the fact to murder, and whether they found him guilty or not guilty as principal. They found the appellant guilty as an accessory before the fact to murder and not guilty as principal, accused Nos. 3, 4 and 5 they found not guilty as accessories and not guilty as principals.
The appellant contended that those verdicts were contradictory and inconsistent and accordingly his conviction should be quashed. The Court of Criminal Appeal (Stoby Ag.C.J., Luckhoo and Date JJ.) rejected that contention on the ground that the jury must have come to the conclusion on the evidence legally admissible against the appellant that he was accessory before the fact to murder committed by the other accused, although they were not satisfied on the evidence legally admissible against each of the other accused considered separately that the Crown had discharged the burden of proving the guilt of any one of them.
Sections 24 and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Osland v R
-
Attorney General's Reference (No. 4 of 1979)
...accused can only make a valid and admissible admission of a statement of fact of which the accused could give admissible evidence: see Surujpaul v. R. (1958) 1 W.L.R. 1050. It is not necessary in this case to examine the limits of, or the extent of any exceptions from, that primary rule. 41......
-
R v Singh et Al
...with Lord Somervell of Harrow and Lord Denning) was at pains to point this out in the Guyanese case of Surujpaul v. Reginam, (1958) 42 Cr. App. R. 266, when delivering the opinion of the Privy Council's Board. One of the points for consideration was whether the ‘confession’ of an accused p......
-
Dick et Al v R
...convict (the aider and abettor].” 263 As authority for that proposition the learned authors appear to be relying on the Guyanese case, Surujpaul v. R. [1958] 3 All E.R. 300 which apparently, as a matter of interest, was not referred to, or discussed in the later case of Anthony. 264 In Suru......
-
Evidence 1
...a relevant fact while confession denotes the admission of guilt. “The test adopted by the Judicial Committee in Surujpaul v.The Queen (1958) 1 W.L.R. 1050 was to look at the evidence “to see if the inconsistency on the record was real or only apparent.” In that case the conviction of the ap......
-
Recent Judicial Decisions
...in a case of murder of the judgment of the Court ofCriminal Appeal of British Guiana by the Judicial Committee ofthe Privy Council (1958, 1 W.L.R. 1050).Itis true that one whoprocures, advises, solicits or instigates in any way another person tocommit a crime is himself guilty of the common......