John Garlick Llewellyn Poulson 24 November 1975 Court of Appeal

Comment

For an Index / Timeline of Court Appeal Documents on Cathy Fox Blog [1]

John Poulson Appeal-  The application for leave to appeal against
sentence was refused.

This is of course relevant to “The Poulson Affair”

This is unredacted.

[1975] EWCA Crim J1124-9

No. 4340/R/74

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

CRIMINAL DIVISION

Royal Courts of Justice

Monday, 24th November 1975
Before:-

Lord Justice Browne

Mr. Justice Milmo

and

Mr. Justice Crichton

Regina
v.

John Garlick Llewellyn Poulson

(From the Shorthand Notes of Cherer & Co., 34 Essex Street, Strand, London,
WC2R 3AT. Telephone Number: 01-583 4121. Shorthand Writers to the Court.)

MR. G. GRAY, Q.C. and MR. G.J.K. COLES appeared for the Applicant.

MR. MULLER appeared for the Crown.

JUDGMENT

(As approved by Judge)

LORD JUSTICE BROWNE : On the 11th February, 1974, at Leeds Crown Court
before Mr. Justice Waller, this Applicant was convicted of conspiracy to
commit corruption and six offences of corruption and was sentenced to a
total of five years’ imprisonment. On the 15th March, 1975, at the same
Crown Court before the same Judge the Applicant pleaded guilty
to three other indictments and asked for eight other cases to be taken into
consideration. He was sentenced to a total of seven years’ imprisonment,
concurrent with the five year sentence imposed on the 11th February.

I shall come back in rather more detail to those convictions and sentences
later. He now applies for an extension of time and if that extension of
time is granted he applies for leave to appeal against those sentences.

So far as the extension is concerned, he did not submit his formal
application until 4th November, 1974, and was therefore substantially out
of time. In due course those applications came before the single Judge and,
on the 11th February of this year, the single Judge refused all the
applications. Last week, on the 14th November, the matter came before this
Court and we granted him leave to renew his application for an extension of
time, notwithstanding his failure to renew it within due time after refusal
by the single Judge. Accordingly today we are concerned with the original
application for an extension of time, between the date of sentence and the
application in November, 1974.

So far as that is concerned, we have before us written representations
prepared by Mr. Gilbert Gray on behalf of the Applicant which set out fully
the grounds for the application for an extension of time. We do not think
it necessary to go in detail into those grounds but we have come to the
conclusion in this case, in spite of the long delay, that we should take
the very exceptional course of grunting the necessary extension of time.
We therefore now go on to consider the application for leave to appeal
against sentence.

At the time of the first conviction, on the 11th February, 1974, the
Applicant was convicted with a Mr. Pottinger of conspiracy to commit
corruption and six offences of corruption and, as I have said, was
sentenced to a total of five years’ imprisonment. The charges of corruption
charged the Applicant with giving and Mr. Pottinger with receiving various
sums in a corrupt way. Pottinger was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment,
the same sentence as the Applicant. On appeal to this Court Pottinger’s
five year sentence was reduced to four years.

On the 15th March, 1974, there were three indictments before the Court, to
all of which the Applicant pleaded guilty. The first one charged him with
Mr. Cunningham Mrs. Cunningham and Mr. T. Dan Smith and he was sentenced to
a total of seven years’ imprisonment, for a charge of conspiracy and eight
charges of corruption.

Cunningham was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment, which on appeal to
this Court, was reduced to four years. T. Dan Smith was sentenced to six
years’ imprisonment.

On the second indictment he was charged with a man called Braithwaite; that
indictment laid six charges of corruption and he was sentenced to three
years’ imprisonment on each count concurently with each other and
concurrently with the other sentences.

The third indictment was with a man called Tunbridge; that was one charge
of conspiracy and five charges of corruption and he was sentenced to two
years’ imprisonment consecutive to the sentences on the second indictment
but
concurrent with the other sentences. He asked for eight offences to be
taken into consideration on that occasion; those offences involved four
other men and four charges each of conspiracy and corruption.

The result of all that is that the Applicant received a total of seven
years’ imprisonment on all the matters charged and taken into consideration.

Mr. Gray has said all that can possibly be said in support of the
application for leave to appeal against sentence. We have considered those
matters with the greatest care but in the end the position is this. This
Applicant was convicted of, or pleaded guilty to, three charges of
conspiracy and twenty-five charges of corruption. He asked for eight other
offences to be taken into consideration – four of conspiracy and four of
corruption. The people involved in these various charges were as follows.
Mr. Pottinger, who was a Civil Servant; Mr. Cunningham, who was a power in
the North-East; Mr. T. Dan Smith who was also a power in the North-East –
possibly a greater power; Mr. Braithwaite, who was Secretary of a
Metropolitan Hospital Board; Mr. Tunbridge, who was a surveyor employed by
British Railways in the Southern region – most of the offences in which he
was concerned were committed in London; the Mayor of Southport; two people
employed by the Coal Board; and another Civil Servant employed by the
Ministry of Health.

We are told by Mr. Muller that the total involved was something just over
£100,000. The offences took place over a wide area, some in the North-East,
some in Lancashire, some in London. Mr. Justice Waller said, I think, that
five or
six different counties had been involved. One must have regard to the
cumulative effect of these sort of offences. It seems to this Court that
the damage to the public interest of these offences is incalculable and
no-one can say how long this damage will last.

In the judgment of this Court we cannot possibly say that a total of seven
years for all these offences charged and taken into consideration was
excessive and accordingly the application for leave to appeal against
sentence is refused.

Please note that victims of abuse may be triggered by reading this information. The Sanctuary for the Abused [A] has advice on how to prevent triggers.  National Association for People Abused in Childhood [B] has a freephone helpline and has links to local support groups. Other useful sites are One in Four [C]  and Havoca [D]. Useful post on Triggers [E]  from SurvivorsJustice [F] blog. Jim Hoppers pages on Mindfulness [G]  and Meditation [H] may be useful.

Links

[1] Cathy Fox Blog 2015 May 8 [constantly updated] An Index / Timeline of Court Appeal Documents on Cathy Fox Blog https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2015/05/08/a-timeline-of-court-and-ewca-documentation-on-cathy-fox-blog/

[A] Sanctuary for the Abused http://abusesanctuary.blogspot.co.uk/2006/07/for-survivors-coping-with-triggers-if.html

[B] NAPAC http://www.napac.org.uk/

[C] One in Four http://www.oneinfour.org.uk/

[D] Havoca http://www.havoca.org/HAVOCA_home.htm

[E] SurvivorsJustice Triggers post http://survivorsjustice.com/2014/02/26/triggers-what-are-they-and-how-do-we-work-through-them/

[F] SurvivorsJustice Blog http://survivorsjustice.com/

[G] Jim Hopper Mindfulness http://www.jimhopper.com/mindfulness/

[H] Jim Hopper Meditation http://www.jimhopper.com/mindfulness/#cultivate

This is all written in good faith but if there is anything that needs to be corrected please email cathyfox@bigfoot.com

cathyfox the truth will out, the truth will shout, the truth will set us free

Advertisements

About cathy fox blog on Child Abuse

the truth will out, the truth will shout, the truth will set us free...
This entry was posted in cathy fox blog, Court, Government and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to John Garlick Llewellyn Poulson 24 November 1975 Court of Appeal

  1. Pingback: An Index and Timeline of Court & Court of Appeal, EWCA Documents on Cathy Fox Blog | cathyfox blog

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s