R v Larsonneur [1933] 24 Cr App Rep 74

An individual may be charged with being "found in the United Kingdom" if they enter or remain in the country without proper authorization or after their permission to stay has been revoked.

• This charge typically arises when an alien is discovered in the UK without a valid visa or after their leave to remain has expired.

• The legal framework for addressing such cases is established under the Aliens Order 1920 and its subsequent amendments, which regulate the entry, stay, and removal of foreign nationals.

When an individual's application for leave to land in the United Kingdom is refused, an endorsement is placed in their passport, requiring them to leave the country.

• This endorsement serves as an official directive mandating the individual to depart the UK within a specified timeframe.

• Failure to comply with this requirement can lead to further legal action, including detention and deportation, in accordance with the provisions of the Aliens Order, 1920, and its amendments.

• Under the Aliens Order 1920, specific articles (Arts. 1 (8) (g), (4), and 18 (1) (b)) outline the conditions under which the police in the United Kingdom may detain an individual who violates immigration laws.

  • These provisions provide the legal basis for detaining aliens who are found to be in the UK unlawfully, pending further action such as deportation or removal.

  • The amendments to the order reflect ongoing adjustments to the legal framework governing the detention and treatment of foreign nationals in the UK.

Marie Larsonneur, a French national, was initially granted permission to land in the United Kingdom under specific conditions endorsed on her passport.

• These conditions were later amended to include a requirement that she depart from the UK by a specified date. 

• On the stipulated date, she travelled to the Irish Free State.

• Subsequently, the executive authorities of the Irish Free State issued a deportation order against her.

• She was returned to Holyhead under the custody of the Irish Free State police. 

• Upon arrival, she was handed over to the UK police and detained.

She was then convicted on the charge of "being an alien to whom leave to land in the United Kingdom has been refused and who was found in the United Kingdom," in violation of Articles 1 (3) (g) and 18 (1) (b) of the Aliens Order, 1920, as amended.

It was held that under Article 1 (4) of the Aliens Order, 1920, as amended, the French national was deemed to be an alien whose landing had been prohibited by the Secretary of State because she was found in the United Kingdom on a date after the deadline specified in the condition endorsed on her passport.

As a result, she had committed the offence with which she was charged, irrespective of the circumstances of her return to the United Kingdom.

In this case, the court addressed significant issues related to judicial summing-up and the treatment of evidence from young witnesses.

• The judgment underscores the critical importance of distinguishing between different counts in an indictment and the need for a nuanced approach when dealing with the testimony of children.

The core issue in this case was the Judge’s failure to properly guide the jury regarding the varied nature of the evidence presented for each count.

• By not differentiating between the counts, the Judge risked conflating distinct allegations and potentially compromising the fairness of the trial.

• This lapse is particularly problematic in cases involving testimony from young children, where the reliability and credibility of evidence can vary significantly.

• The Judge's omission to caution the jury about the specific challenges in assessing the testimony of young witnesses highlights a crucial aspect of trial fairness.

• Children’s testimonies can be influenced by various factors, including their age, understanding, and potential suggestibility.

• A proper summing-up should include guidance on how to critically evaluate such evidence to ensure that the verdict is based on a thorough and fair consideration of all the facts.

The Judge also failed to direct the jury to evaluate whether each girl was a victim or a participant in the offence.

• This lack of direction could have led to confusion and an unjust verdict if the jury needed to clearly understand the role of each witness in the context of the offence.

• Juries must be instructed to differentiate between those who are harmed and those who may be complicit in the alleged wrongdoing to ensure that each count is assessed on its own merits.

The court's decision to quash the conviction reflects a commitment to ensuring that convictions are based on properly evaluated evidence and fair judicial procedures.

This case serves as a reminder of the necessity for meticulous judicial guidance and careful consideration of witness testimony, particularly in these cases involving vulnerable witnesses.

The fundamental principles of justice and fairness in criminal trials emphasize the need for precise legal instructions and scrutiny of evidence to uphold the integrity of the judicial process.