The Gazette 1973

Borth-y-Gest, Lord Simon of Glaisdale and Lord Cross of Chelsea. An agreement to commit a trespass, a civil tort, is indict- able . as a criminal conspiracy where its execution has as its object the invasion of the public domain, such as the premises of a foreign embassy or a Commonwealth High Commission, or is known and intended to inflict on its victim something more than purely nominal injury and damage. The categories of conspiracy to effect a public mischief are not closed, though their extension should be jealously watched by the courts. The House of Lords so held in dismissing an appeal by Sheku Gibril Kamara and eight other students from Sierra Leone from the dismissal of their appeals against convictions for conspiracy to trespass and unlawful assembly by the Court of Appeal (Lord Justice Lawton, Mr. Justice Swanwick and Mr. Justice Phillips), (The Times, October 13, 1972 [1973] 2 WLR 126). The students, who held political opinions opposed to the party in power in S : erra Leone, agreed together to occupy the High Commission's premises in London, to call public attention to their grievances. At 8.30 a.m. on January 21, 1971, they went to the premises. When the caretaker opened the door they told him he was under arrest, and one of them threatened him with a toy pistol. He was locked in a room with about 10 other members of the staff. There was pushing and physical holding of individuals, but no blow was struck and no one was injured. Three members of the staff gave evidence that they had been frightened; there was no evidence that anyone outside the premises had been put in fear. The students were convicted after an 11-day trial at the Central Criminal Court (Judge McKinnon) on an indict- ment which alleged in count 1 that they had conspired together and with other persons to enter the premises of the High Comnrssion of Sierra Leone in London as trespassers and in count 2 that they had unlawfully assembled with intent to carry out a common purpose in such a manner a to endanger the public peace. Kamara and Others v. Director of Public Prosecutions; 5/7/1973. Before Lord Reid, Lord MacDermott, Lord Morris of Borth- y-Gest, Lord Hodson and Lord Pearson. Speeches delivered July 25. A university student who went into a Chinese restaurant with friends intending to have a meal and pay for it but who changed his mind after eating the meal, remained seated until the waiter had gone out of the room, and then ran out without paying, was engaged in a continuous course of conduct constituting the offence of dishonestly obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception contrary to section 16(1) of the Theft Act, 1968, and was properly convicted of the offence. The House of Lords by a majority, Lord Reid and Lord Hodson dissenting, so held in allowing an appeal by the Director of Public Prosecutions from the Queen's Bench Divisional Court (the Lord Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Willis and Mr. Justice Talbot) (The Times, December 20, 1972; [1973] 1 WLR 317), which had allowed an appeal by Roger Anthony Ray, of Kirton L'ndsay, and quashed his conviction by Gainsborough justices of an offence under section 16(1). He had been fined £ 1. The facts as found by the justices were that one evening in September, 1971, the accused and other young men entered the restaurant and four of them, including the accused, ordered a meal. When he entered the accused had only lOp on him but one of the others had agreed to lend him money to pay for a meal, which he ate without making any complaint to the staff. A discuss : on then took place between those who had had a meal, including the accused, and they decided not to pay and to run out of the restaurant. Some 10 minutes later, after being in the restaurant for nearly an hour and maintaining the demeanour of ordinary customers, they ran out while the waiter had gone to the kitchen. No payment was offered and no money left for the meals. Section 16(1) provides that "A person who by any decep- tion dishonestly obtains for himself or another any pecuniary advantage shall on conviction on indictment be liable to imprisonment. . . . " Subsection (2) says that "The cases in which a pecuniary advantage within the meaning of this section is to be regarded as obtained for a person are cases where—(a) any debt or charge for which he makes himself liable or is or may become liable (including one not legally enforceable) is reduced or in whole or in part evaded or deferred. . . ." Director of Public Prosecutions v. Ray; House of Lords; 27/7/1973. 187

both. It was the first prosecution in the United Kingdom under the section. Both owners and master pleaded guilty at the Central Criminal Court (Judge King-Hamilton) in October, 1972. The owners were fined £2,500 and the master £500. Section 1(1), as amended, provides: "If any oil to which this section applies is discharged from a British ship registered in the United Kingdom into a part of the sea which is a prohibited sea area or if any mixture [of oil and water lis discharged from such a ship into such a part of the sea . . . the owner or master . . . shall be guilty of an offence. . . " Regina v. Federal Steam Navigation Co. Ltd.; Regina v. Moran; Court of Appeal; 11/7/1973. Before Lord Widgery, Lord Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Milmo and Mr. Justice Wien. Their Lordships stated the considerations to be borne in mind on sentencing young offenders for grave crimes. Applica- tions for leave to appeal against custodial sentences of 20 and 10 years on three offenders aged 15 and 16 were dis- missed. Mr. Justice Croom—Johnson had sentenced the three —in a rolling and mugging case—at Birmingham Crown Court in March—Paul Edwin Storey, aged 16, to 20 years after pleading guilty to attempted murder and robbery of Mr. Robert Keenan, and Mustafa Fuat and James Patrick Joseph Duignan, both aged 15, to 10 years on pleading guilty to wounding Mr. Keenan with intent and robbing him. Regina v. Storey, Regina v. Fuat, Regina v. Duignan; Court of Appeal; 29/6/1973. Before Lord Widgery, Lord Chief Justice, Lord Justice Lawton and Mr. Justice Milmo. Judgment delivered June 28. A charge of conspiracy was not bad in law because as the trial progressed the evidence was consistent with more than one conspiracy; but a conspiracy count was bad if it charged the defendants with having been members of two or more conspiracies. Their Lordships so held when giving reasons for dismissing the appeals of James Greenfield, John Barker, Hilary Ann Creek and Anna Mendleson, all aged 24, from their convictions at the Central Criminal Court (Mr. Justice James) on counts charging, inter alia, conspiracy to cause explosions (count 1). Their appeals against sentences of 10 years each were also dismissed. Regina v. Greenfield and Others; Court of Appeal; 3 / 7/ 1973. Before Lord Hailsham of St. Marylebone, Lord Chancellor, Lord Reid, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, Lord Guest and Lord Cross of Chelsea. Speeches delivered July 4. The House of Lords unanimously decided that a person commits the offence of affray if he alone is unlawfully fight- ing to the terror of other persons. Their Lordships dismissed an appeal by Vincent Taylor, aged 27, from the dismissal of his appeal by the Court of Appeal ( The Times, October 10) against conviction of affray by a majority verdict at Notting- ham Crown Court. Taylor v. DPP; House of Lords; 6/7/1973. Counsel's right to open Counsel should not be restricted in opening a defendant's case fully to the jury, Lord Justice Roskill said in the Court of Appeal in dismissing appeals by Paul Alexander John Randall and two others against their convictions of possess : ng explosives, burglary and taking and driving away a motor vehicle at Berkshire Assizes (Mr. Justice Mais) in 1971. After the close of the case for the Crown, counsel for the defence had submitted that there was no case to go to the jury. The judge ruled against h : m and counsel, as he was entitled to do by the Criminal Evidence Act, 1865, proceeded to outline his client's case to the jury. Counsel for the Crown objected on the basis that he was not opening his case but was criticizing the prosecution evidence. The judge had stopped counsel for the defence and confined him, for which in the clear absence of impropriety there was no possible justification. Lord Chief Justice Cockbum in R. v. Wain- wright ([1875] 13 Cox CC 171) made it quite clear that counsel for the defence had the right to open a case fully to the jury as well as to address them fully at the end of evidence. His Lordship also criticized the way an expert witness, a distinguished scientist from the Royal Observatory, Green- wich, had been treated. The judge had denigrated his evidence and stated it inaccurately to the jury in his summing-up. He had been less courteous than was proper in the circumstances. Regina v. Randall; Court of Appeal; 11/7/1973. Before Viscount Hailsham, Lord Chancellor, Lord Morris of