The Gazette 1967/71

of adequate but not abundant means and to ask oneself whether the expenses were such as a sensible solicitor in the light of his then know ledge would consider reasonable to incur in the interests of his client. (Francis v. Francis and Dickerson [1955] E.R. 836. considered. Practice Direction (Crime : Costs) The defendant pleaded not guilty at Birmingham quarter sessions to 3 counts of receiving stolen property and his defence included allegations of perjury by prosecuting witnesses and intimidation, threats and improper behaviour by senior police officers. He was convicted and, in sentencing him to 5 years' imprisonment, the recorder referred to the way he had run his defence. The defendant appealed against sentence. Lord Parker C.J. said that the court felt that there was a danger that the defendant had been given a serious sentence because he had pleaded not guilty or because of the way he had run his defence. It was wrong to use language which might convey to a defendant that his sentence was being increased because he had pleaded not guilty or because of the nature of his defence. It was, however, proper to give a lesser sentence if a defendant had shown genuine remorse, amongst other things, by pleading guilty. The sentence would be reduced to 3 years' imprisonment. Appeal allowed. (R. v Harper, Solicitors' Journal [Volume 112] p. 189). Plea in mitigation The defendant pleaded guilty at Hereford quarter sessions to an indictment containing two counts, housebreaking and larceny. The deputy chairman sentenced him to a total of 4£ years' imprisonment. The defendant appealed against sentence. Edmund Davies L.J. said that the court had come to the conclusion that to sentence the defendant to 4£ years' imprisonment, even though the offences were grave and he had a bad record, was to give inadequate consideration to the mitigating element of his plea of guilty. The sen tence would be reduced to a total of 3 years' im prisonment. Appeal allowed. (R. v. De Haan, Solicitors Journal [Volume 112] p. 189). Privilege—Production of Documents The reversal by the House of Lords of the Court of Appeal's decision in Conway v. Rimmer makes [1968] 1 WLR. p. 398). Effect of plea on sentence

legal history. For the first time in England a ministers' claim to withold production of a docu ment on the grounds that it's disclosure would be contrary to the public interest will be capable of review by the Judge who will, now be in a position to order its production for inspection for the purpose of balancing the public interest in the proper administration of justice against that of witholding any evidence which a minister con siders ought to be witheld. This does not mean that the court will necessarily reject the minister's view. Full weight will be given to such in every case, and if the minister's reasons are of a kind which judicial experience is not competent to weigh the minister's view must prevail. Duncan v. Cammell Laird & Co. Ltd. (1942) A.C. 624 con sidered). (Conway v. Rimmer, Solicitors' Journal [Vol. 112] p. 191). Road Traffic Sentence—Severe Punishment to be expected A passenger in a car driven by A was killed when it crashed while in a 'burn up' or race on the highway with a car driven by B; both cars were ten years old and speeds of 60 m.p.h. were achieved. Both A & B were convicted of causing death by dangerous driving; each had a bad driving record and was sentenced to, inter alia two years imprisonment. They applied for leave to appeal against sentence. James J. said that the vice of the offence was that the applicants deliberately set out to race along the road. Those who were familiar with calendars throughout the country and at the Central Criminal Court knew full well of the considerable number of cases of causing death by dangerous driving. The time had come when those who indulged in activities amounting to such an offence had to expect severe punishment. No error of principle was involved in the sen tences. Applications refused. (R. v. Boe; R. v. Saunders, Solicitors' Journal [Vol. Ill] p. 999). Exposure to unnecessary risk The plaintiff deal porter was injured when he slipped on a patch of ice and fell from a pile of timber. He sued his employers who denied liability and contended that the plaintiff's post- accident fear of heights was not capable of medical classification or treatment and that loss of wages due to that was not a recoverable damage. Held (i) that the plaintiff had asked for, but not been supplied with, brooms, shovels or salt; (ii) that the defendants were in breach of 106