190 / 262
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
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