B e f o r e :
LORD JUSTICE KENNEDY MR JUSTICE ROYCE ____________________
____________________
Computer-Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of Smith Bernal Wordwave Limited 190 Fleet Street London EC4A 2AG Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838 (Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
SIMON WALEY (instructed by Lancaster's Solicitors) appeared on behalf of the CLAIMANT THE DEFENDANT DID NOT ATTEND AND WAS NOT REPRESENTED ____________________
HTML VERSION OF JUDGMENT ____________________
Crown Copyright ©
MR JUSTICE ROYCE: This is an appeal by way of case stated by the appellant against his conviction for burglary by the Bridlington Youth Court on 21 November 2002. He was charged jointly with two other youths, N and D, with the burglary of commercial premises called Jarvis Workspace on 22 May 2002. The justices found the following facts:
They were of the opinion that:
The question framed for the opinion of this court is:
The question is not very happily framed. On the evidence it may have been open to the justices to infer and then conclude that the appellant was party to a joint enterprise to burgle: for example, by acting as a lookout. However, it is noteworthy that they did not. Had they found that he was deliberately assisting or encouraging others to commit the burglary then, of course, he would have been guilty. Also, had he been present ready to assist if required, that might also be sufficient. All they found here, however, was: (1) that he knew the other two were burgling the premises, and (2) that he remained at the scene outside. Those findings without more are insufficient to justify his conviction of the offence of burglary.
Therefore, the answer to the question framed is no. It is unsurprising in these circumstances that this appeal is unopposed. The consequence is that the conviction must, in my judgment, be quashed.
LORD JUSTICE KENNEDY: I agree.