Breadcrumbs Section. Click here to navigate to respective pages.
Chapter
Chapter
Petition: The Appeal Committee of the House of Lords (Lord Fraser of Tullybelton, Lord Roskill and Lord Bridge of Harwich) dismissed a petition by the appellant for leave to appeal. Ryan and French v DPP [1994] Crim LR 457 (DC) Facts: A month after a dinghy had been stolen, the loser saw it in the possession of the appellants. They claimed that the appellant French had bought it a year previously. They were charged with both theft and handling of the dinghy. Justices convicted them of the handling and acquitted them of the theft. On appeal by way of case stated it was argued: (1) that the justices would have had to have found as a fact that the appellants were not the thieves, which they could not have done, as the evidence was equally consistent with theft as handling; (2) the justices should have directed themselves to withdraw the count of handling, the evidence being more consistent with theft. The question certified was: ‘Can a conviction of handling be justified on the evidence given, having regard to the fact that the appellants were acquitted on the count of theft?’ Held, dismissing the appeal: (1) It was well understood that the prosecution did not have to prove that handlers were not thieves. (2) There are cases where it is appropriate to withdraw a count or charge of handling when both theft and handling are charged. This was not such a case. There was sufficient evidence to support a prima facie case on each charge and it was for the justices to decide on the basis of their assessment of the witnesses and the inferences they were prepared to draw if either charge were made out. R v Fernandez [1997] 1 Cr App R 123 (CA)
DOI link for Petition: The Appeal Committee of the House of Lords (Lord Fraser of Tullybelton, Lord Roskill and Lord Bridge of Harwich) dismissed a petition by the appellant for leave to appeal. Ryan and French v DPP [1994] Crim LR 457 (DC) Facts: A month after a dinghy had been stolen, the loser saw it in the possession of the appellants. They claimed that the appellant French had bought it a year previously. They were charged with both theft and handling of the dinghy. Justices convicted them of the handling and acquitted them of the theft. On appeal by way of case stated it was argued: (1) that the justices would have had to have found as a fact that the appellants were not the thieves, which they could not have done, as the evidence was equally consistent with theft as handling; (2) the justices should have directed themselves to withdraw the count of handling, the evidence being more consistent with theft. The question certified was: ‘Can a conviction of handling be justified on the evidence given, having regard to the fact that the appellants were acquitted on the count of theft?’ Held, dismissing the appeal: (1) It was well understood that the prosecution did not have to prove that handlers were not thieves. (2) There are cases where it is appropriate to withdraw a count or charge of handling when both theft and handling are charged. This was not such a case. There was sufficient evidence to support a prima facie case on each charge and it was for the justices to decide on the basis of their assessment of the witnesses and the inferences they were prepared to draw if either charge were made out. R v Fernandez [1997] 1 Cr App R 123 (CA)
Petition: The Appeal Committee of the House of Lords (Lord Fraser of Tullybelton, Lord Roskill and Lord Bridge of Harwich) dismissed a petition by the appellant for leave to appeal. Ryan and French v DPP [1994] Crim LR 457 (DC) Facts: A month after a dinghy had been stolen, the loser saw it in the possession of the appellants. They claimed that the appellant French had bought it a year previously. They were charged with both theft and handling of the dinghy. Justices convicted them of the handling and acquitted them of the theft. On appeal by way of case stated it was argued: (1) that the justices would have had to have found as a fact that the appellants were not the thieves, which they could not have done, as the evidence was equally consistent with theft as handling; (2) the justices should have directed themselves to withdraw the count of handling, the evidence being more consistent with theft. The question certified was: ‘Can a conviction of handling be justified on the evidence given, having regard to the fact that the appellants were acquitted on the count of theft?’ Held, dismissing the appeal: (1) It was well understood that the prosecution did not have to prove that handlers were not thieves. (2) There are cases where it is appropriate to withdraw a count or charge of handling when both theft and handling are charged. This was not such a case. There was sufficient evidence to support a prima facie case on each charge and it was for the justices to decide on the basis of their assessment of the witnesses and the inferences they were prepared to draw if either charge were made out. R v Fernandez [1997] 1 Cr App R 123 (CA)
ABSTRACT
The appellant was tried ... on an indictment which included eight counts. The counts with which this appeal is concerned were counts 3, 4 and 5. Count 3 charged him with an offence of robbery contrary to s 8(1) of the Theft Act: it alleged that he had robbed an employee of the Allied Irish Bank on 10 November 1994 of a quantity of money. Count 4 charged him with having a firearm with intent to commit an indictable offence, namely theft, on the same occasion, contrary to s 18(1) of the Firearms Act 1968. Count 5 was a count of handling stolen goods contrary to s 22(1) of the Theft Act. The particulars alleged that the appellant had:
On a day between the 9th day of November 1994 and the 12th day of November 1994 dishonestly received stolen goods, namely a quantity of money belonging to Allied Irish Bank, knowing or believing the same to be stolen goods.
