BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?

No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!



BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions >> GINGELL, R v. [1999] EWCA Crim 1025 (16 April 1999)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/1999/1025.html
Cite as: [1999] EWCA Crim 1025

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

STUART GINGELL, R v. [1999] EWCA Crim 1025 (16th April, 1999)

No: 98/3570/Z4

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION

Royal Courts of Justice
The Strand
London WC2

Friday 16th April 1999

B E F O R E :

LORD JUSTICE WALLER

MR JUSTICE BUTTERFIELD

and


HIS HONOUR JUDGE ALLEN
(Sitting as a Judge of the CACD)

- - - - - - - - - - - -

R E G I N A


- v -


STUART GINGELL

- - - - - - - - - - - -
Computer Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited
180 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2HG
Tel No: 0171 421 4040 Fax No: 0171 831 8838
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
- - - - - - - - - - - -

MR P LEVY appeared on behalf of the Appellant
MR K STONES appeared on behalf of the Crown

- - - - - - - - - - - -
JUDGMENT
( As Approved by the Court )
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Crown Copyright



JUDGMENT

LORD JUSTICE WALLER: On 3rd March 1998 in the Crown Court at Woolwich, during his trial on an indictment charging three offences, the appellant was acquitted by direction at half time on counts 1 and 3. Thereafter, on 18th May 1998, again at Woolwich before His Honour Judge Pryor, following a four day retrial on count 2, the appellant was convicted. His co-accused had pleaded guilty to all three counts and had been previously sentenced to a term of imprisonment. The appellant appeals against conviction by leave of the single judge.

The point that arises hardly needs a recitation of the facts. The count on which the appellant was convicted was a count in the following terms. He was charged with handling stolen goods contrary to section 22(1) of the Theft Act 1968 and the particulars of the offence where that:
"Andrew Camper and Stewart Matthew Albert Gingell on a day between the 20th day of April 1997 and the 30th day of April 1997 dishonestly undertook or assisted in the retention removal disposal or realisation of stolen goods namely a Vauxhall L22 RPU belonging to Stephen Bate by or for the benefit of another or dishonestly arranged so to do knowing or believing the same to be stolen goods."
The Crown's case and it has also always been accepted by the Crown that this was their only case, was that so far as the appellant Gingell was concerned the only other person was Andrew Camper (ie the co-accused on that count). No point was taken at the trial but counsel for the appellant Gingell had certain authorities drawn to his attention at some stage and the point taken on the appeal and the point on which leave has been given, rests on the authority of R v Roberts , a decision given by this court on 9th July 1993, the court presided over by Hirst LJ with the judgment given by Ognall J. We quote from that judgment:
"There is authority which demonstrates that the word 'another' in section 21(1) of the Act cannot be taken to embrace a co-accused on the same charge. See, in this context, Nicklin (1977) 64 Cr App R 205 and Bloxham (1982) 74 Cr App R 279. That being so, both upon the evidence that was before the court and upon authority, in our judgment the learned judge ought to have acceded to the submission made at the end of the prosecution. It has to be recorded that this is a purely technical point and therefore not a point that this court espouses with any enthusiasm but, nonetheless, in any event, it is fatal to the prosecution case."


We have to say that we do not see in fact that Nicklin or Bloxham on examination were already dealing with the same point as arose in that case and as arisen in this case. However, that said, Roberts is in our view consistent with previous authorities of this court, eg R v Connelly (Transcript 18th October 1991) and Lubren and Adepoju . Connelly was dealing with the supply of a controlled drug to another and what Stuart Smith LJ said in that case, dealing with Lubren and Adepoju (also concerned with the supply of a controlled drug to another) is this:

"It is quite plain in our judgment that the court in that case [that is the Lubren case] was using the term indictment as synonymous with 'count'. There were two previous decisions of this court, namely the case of Brian Hugh William Smith and Ferrara. The reasoning behind the decision in both those cases and Lubren's case is that as a matter of plain English where A, B and C are charged with supplying a drug to another, the other cannot be either A, B or C. It simply does not make sense. That is the ratio of those cases and the ratio of the case of Lubren."

As it seems to us, that is the difficulty for the Crown in this case. As a matter of plain language this count charged Camper and Gingell with undertaking or assisting "for the benefit of another". As a matter of plain language that must be someone other than Camper or Gingell. That being so, as it seems to us, in this case the appellant Gingell was in fact convicted of an offence which was not the offence proved by the Crown and that being so his appeal against conviction must be allowed. Accordingly we allow the appeal against conviction.

© 1999 Crown Copyright

BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/1999/1025.html