Crown Court - Regina V Vennings & Vennings
Вставка
- Опубліковано 24 жов 2024
- Customs officers search a motor-cruiser in the Thames and find £200,000-worth of heroin. The owner's 20-year-old student son, who brought the boat from the continent - claimed he knew nothing about it. Many twists and turns to this case.
The Jury comprised members of the public who decided on the verdict.
Cast includes: Bernard Gallagher, Charles Keating, Richard Warner, Michael Ridgway, Peter Jeffrey, Jean Harvey, Lynn Dalby, Derek Hockridge. Peter Ellis, Peter Wheeler, David Casey, David Ashford, William Simons.
Written by Roger Parks
Directed by Brian Mills
Produced by Michael Dunlop
Granada Television 1972
Fascinating episode. Back in my customs & excise days I was part of a small team that trained our officers on how to "perform" in court. The course would include hiring real barristers, actors and extras as well as either Horseferry Road or Bow Street Magistrates court rooms. Crown Court tapes from our ITV (South Bank) neighbours were invaluable. Wonder what happened to our mock court tape recordings? Great fun and the booze ups thereafter.
Excellent series, well written and brilliantly acted. Made when ITV had as good a reputation as the BBC for drama. Thanks for sharing!
Yeah great propoganda peice as that's not how it works, unless your white, male, and middle class.
I'd never come across it but yeah excellent with some recognisable actors in their younger days
I remember watching Crown Court when I was off school either because it was school holidays or I was off sick - sometimes put on so I could have a day off!
i hated , hated, hated this when i was a kid , strange after looking up old 70,s 80,s dramas etc this popped up on my screen. could not come away from the story what great acting and tense drama really enjoyed it . dont think it will get me watching the sullivans just yet another programme what i detested and always wondered why they would stick these programmes on at 1pm . i now know why it was to get you back to school after watching pipkin :) thanks for upload and will be watching more of these on a sunday rainy day .
This was a very good series, especially when you consider they were on at lunchtime.
Thanks for the upload Michael. 👍
I used to bunk off school and watch this. If it were on TV now I'd throw a sicky from work to watch it.
then i put it to you that you are a wastrel, a slacker and a liar whose testimony is completely worthless except as a self-indictment of unreliability
My favourite as a child. It introduced me to a love of the law. Lovely to see again. Thank you
Well worth a watch even though it was made several year's ago. PC. 10.03.2023.
Loved Crown Court. Was broadcast during the week at lunchtime if I remember correctly. So many famous faces on it and so well done.
So this was a tv show it was all fake
Yes, I remember dashing home from school to watch it at lunchtime on a Tue, Wed and thu.
Looks good and real
@@batman47751 then if you thought that it is a high testimony to the actors & to the production. This was a TV show those of use of a certain age use to watch when not in school at about 1 or 1.30 in the afternoon, each episode was - usually - half an hour & shown on - usually - consecutive days
@@batman47751fiction, not fake, presented to be a drama.
The excellent Crown Court series based on real cases and trials. A shame a lot more people do not watch the series or know about how courts work.
Um.. pardon me my friend but as far as I know the cases were were all fictional but of course reflect reality in a certain way somehow for reality is triple time more shocking in the matter of fact as you know.
I used to watch 60 minutes, an American series which portrayed and viewed real recordings of investigations revolved around real cases some of which you wished you never learned of. I stopped watching it because it was toxic to me.
Fictional cases but real( members of the public) jurors.
@joedge6142 with an actor playing the role of Jury Foreman. The actor in this case going on to be Chief Superintendent Brownlow in The Bill.
@@williamnightingale2285 Yes, they had to be a member of equity to speak.
I haven't seen this show before but I will definitely look for more episodes.
When my Mum was going through her second divorce I overheard her talking about going to court and I remember being worried she would be on this !
Aw . . Bless you . . 🇬🇧
Thank you, so much for posting this. I've fast-forwarded it on Talking Pictures TV now, watching Danger UXB before I have stuff to do in a bit! I can watch this whenever I want!
Crown Court was an excellent TV series. It showed the general public how the courts operated. It presents a view and a record of a court system and language that will disappear eventually.
Totally disagree, it was an out of date, wooden and amateurish production usually scheduled for mid afternoons with very few viewers. The court proceedings, although with a simplistic authenticity, bore little resemblance of actuality. It definitely was not ‘an excellent TV series’, more probably just used for a fill in for gaps in afternoon low peak schedules and was never shown during prime viewing times.
@@carlzeiss4871
Opinions are like bumholes. You have yours and I have mine. Thank you for your opinion.
@@rosshilton fair enough
@@carlzeiss4871 I think you are going a little too far in dismissing the production. It creaked legalistically and was not entirely convincing in that respect. This was partly because the writer had to be ambiguous about whether the defendant was innocent or guilty to leave it open for the Jury to decide one way or the other. Not being allowed to know whether the defendant was innocent or guilty was an awful constraint on the writer. In some respects it was well written and I think the atmosphere of the courtroom was quite skilfully captured and I think on the whole the acting was really quite good. It attracted some quite big name actors and I believe it was a popular lunchtime production with good viewing figures for that time of the day - possibly more than people watch a particular lunchtime television production now - but that's just a guess. Because of its popularity I believe it was being considered for transfer to an evening schedule but this didn't transpire in the end. The whole series was shown on a satellite channel in more recent years. I only know this because I got a very small surprise royalty cheque in the post about ten years ago as the actor who played Paul!
@@micridg ok well, obviously you are entitled to your opinion. I guess that the factual nature of the programme didn’t particularly lend itself to an entertainment genre as much as court based drama does these days. In fairness, my recollection of watching many episodes was borne out of frustration that I didn’t have a job and was always seeking to alleviate boredom in the afternoons. So I’m not going to argue your point of view, if other people obtained entertainment or enjoyment from the series then perhaps all is not lost! Whatever butters your muffin I guess.
"Of course I am French! Why else would I have this _outrageous_ accent?!?!"
"Now listen here my good man! If you don't let us in, we shall take the castle by force'
Monsieur Arthur King, who has the brain of a duck, you know.
"I told him we already have one"
@@Spectrescup This!!
😂😂😂
How refreshing to see a UK court room portrayed properly. IE: No gavel for the judge and counsel DO NOT walk about in front of the jury. BBC please note!
They don't use gavels in English legal dramas.
@@neilaspin008 I have seen dramas where Crown Court judges have had them. Unfortunately I can't remember which ones. But I have seen it. They tend to be modern ones and they have counsel walking about as in US courts.
It's the same with US courtroom dramas, they have the lawyers prancing all around the courtroom. If any lawyer tried to cross the well without permission in a US courtroom, they could well get tackled by the bailiff. At the very least it would be seen as a grave breach of decorum and they'd get a good scolding from the judge. American judges don't use gavels either, at least they haven't for a very long time.
A very young William Simons (PC Ventress from Heartbeat) playing Mr Welby, the customs man! He also played Prosecution Barristers in later episodes of Crown Court.
And a witness called Pope in The Sweeney 4th series
@@susannamarker2582 I suppose I may as well add a young Peter Ellis (Superintendent Brownlow) from "The Bill"
Martin O’Connor, QC!
Omg thank you for that!
@@susannamarker2582& as Pongo Harris in a 1983 episode of Minder- ' the Wilsden Suite' ; off loading dodgy confiture & toiletries to a dodgy hotel .
What an excellent and convincing performance Michael. Perfect casting.
Thanks for your kind complement!
'i'@@micridg
Quality drama that was televised on weekday lunchtimes. Sadly missed now.
Fantastic! I'm so glad you found an episode of Crown Court, ah, I loved this as a kid 💗👍💐
Me too
super to see this series again after so many years
This stands up very well after 40 years
It certainly does.
This was an early afternoon filler & I never watched it but now it's compulsive viewing of nearly 880 episodes. That's a lot of crime. Take me down m'Lud.
Another notable appearance as yet unmentioned is that of a comparatively young Peter Ellis as Jury Foreman, later to spend 16 years as Chief Supt Brownlow in The Bill.
Such observation ✔👍
Peter also appeared in a comedy role as wicked cousin Jerez in Victoria Wood’s Acorn Antiques.
The actor playing the prosecuting council has appeared as a barrister in a number of the Crown Court episodes. He is always so natural and utterly convincing that I forget he isn't a real barrister.
This is the actor who portrayed Carl Hutchins until its end on Another World.
Proper actor who doesn't win awards sadly. They give Oscars for a bit of acting nowadays but in Crown Court even when they trip over their lines they don't miss a beat.
Watched a few Crown Court episodes years ago as broadcasts. Now I realise how excellent they are. Thanks. Dave
Yes, he's always very good. Seems nice, understanding, reasonable, but then you see the iron fist in the velvet glove. I think he was Rex Mottram in Brideshead Revisited, too.
Never saw this show before, enjoyed it very much!! Everyone's acting was so good! However must say that in America the prosecuting counsel's questioning would be called "badgering" and stopped immediately. However, I personally *loved* it 😄
It is up to opposing counsel to object if they feel that a witness is being "badgered". The judge will only interject on points of law. If the stern questioning is pertinent to the case, it will be allowed, within reason.
Very well produced. Everyone were actors apart from the jury who were members of the public who made genuine deliberations on the case before them.
Everyone but the Foreman/Forewoman who had to be a member of the acting union
There were times when they were directed to bring about “not guilty” verdicts, though!
Really that's interesting
Wow! man you played Paul, all the way through the trial i was thinking that accused bloke is playing this part brilliant, your facial expressions as you listened to it roll out against you, nice one
Peter Ellis (later Chief Superintendent Brownlow in 'The Bill') as jury foreman.
Fabulous voice the judge had, Bernard Gallagher, I believe. Very believable, too.
excellet twists that kept me watchig. the jury foreman went on to be in The Bill. A thoroughly enjoyable series.
Just been on Talking Pictures recently. Loved this one particularly.
I watched Crown Court when it was first shown on TV in the 1970s. I always believed that the jury was selected from members of the public.
But at 53:41 you can clearly see the actor Peter Ellis who for 16 years played the part of Chief Superintendent Brownlow in the TV series The Bill.
I think that the one Jury member who had a few lines had to be an actor according to Equity rules, so it is true that one of the Jury members was an actor
@@micridg Ahh... that's very interesting (and I'm not being sarcastic). Thank you for that. 👍
Hard to believe that this was made almost half a century ago.....
And so was I I can tell every time I look in the mirror 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
superior to most Tv these days
A fine performance Mr Ridgway! I hope the five years inside went reasonably quickly.⛓⛓⛓
Contrary to most commenters, this is a very flawed episode. Surely the police would've finger-printed both the drug packets and Mr. Vennings jr. and this would've been of more value than all the other evidence presented.
Thanks for sharing this.
The jury was not actors but general public & they actually decided the ending guilty or not guilty, so the script had two endings to use.
A really trite point here. If you look at some of the Sooty and Co programmes (also by Granada, where Sooty, Sweep, Soo, Scampi and Matthew ran a junk shop) the Crown Court crest is often seen hanging on the wall in the background. Granada was obviously reusing its old props.
Looking back there was so much quality TV at times you should be working/going to school - no wonder there was a high unemployment! You can't even get this quality on prime time TV now, then you got Crown Court now you have Judge Rinder just an observation lol
This was when we still lived in a social democracy, and believed in educating the population. Thatcher put an end to all that, and we're seeing the results of it now. Mind you, to be fair to her she wouldn't have accepted the Brexit result.
Everything was far more civilised back then, for all the faults.
They still never told us where he got so much money to buy the heroin, or find large quantities available over a weekend, or was able to negotiate in French with gangsters, or not be cheated by them and given a substitute, or even be trusted by them to not turn them in if he was caught. This is a very odd story.
The story is not that he bought it; rather that a professional gang paid him to 1) let them hide it aboard, 2) transport it across The Channel, and 3) leave the boat unlocked for them to retrieve the heroin.
That's a standard way of operation, very frequently used. For instance years ago - around that time, I suppose - I and one of my friends were paid to pick up a car in England, take it over to France on the ferry, leave it in a certain car park for so many hours while we did something else, then return with the car, and in England leave it in a designated place. Instructions were by phone, our earnings through the post, and we never saw any of the organizers. [In the car park, a wheel of the car was changed by a man with an innocent-looking garage truck. The dope was in the tyre of the new wheel.]
We were foolish in believing it to be a perfectly safe operation. As it happens we were lucky. If we had been discovered by the customs, of course the real smugglers would remain free and would merely have suffered a small financial loss, easily absorbed in their economic model. That's the whole principle - it's perfectly safe for the organizers. All the serious risk is undertaken by the [usually] young and foolish - as we were.
What a coincidence! I've just switched over from another one of these, where William Simons is one of the barristers!
Wow, British prosecutors are (were?) allowed to badger the hell out of witnesses and defendants, even going so far as to tell them what they secretly believe or think. I'm no lawyer, but I don't think that would fly in any US courtroom, especially with the personal and irrelevant insinuations about character.
Remember this TV series is 40-50 years old.
The French guy is so funny!
Michael, you were a very beautiful young man. Skillfully and convincingly acted. It almost brought a tear to my eyes when the verdict was read.
Thank you Paul for the complement! :-)
The prosecution and the defense have changed places in this drama, compared with what I used to see in other British productions such as Rumpole and Kavanagh.
The actor Michael ridgeway playing Paul Vennings reminds of Robert Swann who played Rowntree in “if” the 1968 film
Great coat on the Frenchman. Like a pirate.
That customs officer usually plays a barrister - Martin O’Connor, his regular character is called - usually defending someone!
As for the jury foreman - can’t remember his character name - I think he was a superintendent in The Bill!
The French guy looks like he walked in from the 17th century 😃
I would have been one of the two jurors who refused to convict him. (I believe in the USA the verdict must be unanimous.) I don't understand why the yellow flag of quarantine was not mentioned in the case.
A terrible sentence, but if this case had been tried in the US today, the sentence would have been life without the possibility of parole. Thousands of men, women and even children are serving such sentences in the American Gulag. A crime against humanity and not one American politician has spoken against it.
The problem is that cocaine is soaked in the blood of Colombian and Peruvian policemen and women and civilians too.
1:05:00 "...the accused wanted to change his verdict to one of guilty..." Surely the judge means plea.
When a defendant pleads guilty, it serves as both plea and verdict since the charges are not being contested. The case is effectively over and all that remains is sentencing.
@@robashton8606 Thank you!
Excellent! I wonder if there are more series?
Yes, there are many on YT. Just search Crown Court TV series.
So why did your rather short acting career end so abruptly, Michael Ridgway? I recall you from Crossroads and remember watching this Crown Court case when it was first broadcast. Great show, great case. Your 'dad' Peter Jeffrey was a fine actor.
Hi, thanks for your comment. I'm amazed that you remember me from Crossroads that I was only in for 5 weeks in 1972. Thank you for actually remembering me! I'm afraid my acting career did come to an abrupt end with a bit of a crisis when I was 26 and I moved with my family to Wales and basically my life went in a different direction. I actually found a little clip of me in Crossroads very recently . ua-cam.com/video/BpYf3rjqYHM/v-deo.html
A bravura performance by Michael Keaton as prosecution counsel.
Charles Keating, surely?
Chief Superintendent Brownlow (of "The Bill") as the jury foreman!
Strange casting. The first customs officer is usually a Crown Court QC, and the father defendant ditto!
Welsh actor Richard Davies in the jury. Bald head & spectacles. He was in many shows including Selwyn Froggitt and The Bill.
I thought it was the father using his son to carry the drugs.
That's an interesting thought
The first juror is the chief inspector in the bill
Interesting to see Peter Ellis, who went on to play Chief Superintendent Brownlow in The Bill for sixteen years, in the role of foreman of the jury.
Yes, Equity Rules dictated that the Foreman of the Jury had to be an Actor, but the other Jurors were all members of the public, as they never spoke.
Jury foreman was Peter Ellis - Det. Sgt. Brownlow from _The Bill._
He was the Chief Superintendent
I do not say this often, but I do believe the jury got this one wrong. I believe the defence QC had the correct summation. I will also add that I do love those with a girlfriend who does not have an ounce of grey matter in her cranium. It usually has a comical outcome, be it rather gruesome to hear or see, 🙂
I used to fancy the prosecution lawyer.
And in one episode it had no less than Margaret Lockwood in it playing a barrister bringing series is I remember rightly it was on at 1:30 in the afternoonand then after that unfortunately it was crossroads no comment needed on that one
"My Lord, I really must object! The witness presenting himself as Mr Welby a Waterguard Officer of HM Customs and Excise frequently appears in this court as a Barrister; Mr Martin O'Connor QC. Are we to believe the witness when he appears to have two different identities?
That dodgy mechanic was the culprit! I'd've voted "Not guilty!".
Nowadays they'd've thrown away the key for two keys!
"these classic british tv shows differed from the american
tv shows which made them more well acted."-🤔📺🌐..
With parents and a girlfriend like that, who needed enemies?..
The hide of the prosecutor saying that because the accused had a hair cut he was trying to present himself to the jury as a different person to who he really is. It's still his own hair and hair colour and unlike the prosecutor he's not adopting a wig and costume as a disguise.
Imagine if a spiv was the defendent. It would be less than 5 minutes of part 1😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
7:01 - As usual on Crown Court, a jury full of pensioners who would surely have been challenged by the defence in a real trial, especially in one involving drugs. The poor kid didn't stand a chance!
Nowadays it would probably have been recognised that the chap here was on the autistic spectrum - probably Aspgergers.
You can't select the jury like that in the UK. You get the first jurors chosen at random. The verdicts in this programme were not scripted. The jury were members of the public who had to be able to sit through a day of filming and then decide the verdict. So they would tend to be pensioners or students who were free during the day.
they were not all pensioners
Once again we are told that the jury is made up from ordinary members of the public yet once again the foreman is a professional actor.
Once again someone has to have it explained to them that anyone in a speaking role is a professional actor. Why this is so hard to understand I have no idea.
The foreman had to be a member of Equity. That doesn't necessarily mean a professional actor. Could be a stagehand or member of an orchestra. Irrespective, they are also members of the public.
If it ain't Cheif Inspector Pringle. From Thin Ice an episode of the Sweeney
As the British always say.. Quite!
Having heard all the evidence, there was too much reasonable doubt for me to enter a vote of guilty. That would have made it a 9 to 3 vote and he would have got off
He won't survive 5 years in prison with that haircut.
You know what some people should people to avoid complications or being in further trouble
If they know that they’ve committed a crime forgoodnesake just do the right thing and plead guilty.
The prosecution didn't identify or examine the means of how he paid for the drugs. He was a student.
@Scott George Well usually the courier of drugs doesn't pay for the drugs, they get paid.
@MichaelKingsfordGray So?
@@PetroicaRodinogaster264 You obviously not watching too closely.
He's just a courier. He never owned the drugs, so he didn't pay for them. He delivers them or a very bad man comes to see him.
I thought it was him the first time but it isn’t.
Good old Boycie!
The actor who played the father is Peter Jeffrey, though I can see that there is a resemblance to John Challis who was Boycie.
I disagree with the verdict.
Seems that governments are the only entities / corporations allowed to traffic drugs 🤣
21:19. Boycie!!
He trew his sun under the bus 🚌
Very clearly two kilos of refined heroin.
As a kid l hated this programme. I always wanted to watch Mr Benn or Mary Mungo and Midge
LOL
The Judge, Richard Warner, sounds like Red Cloak from Eyes Wide Shut !
is this based on a real trial, a reenactment? or purely fictitious drama
It's a fictitious drama with two rehearsed endings, one in which the defendant is found innocent and the other guilty. The Jury is comprised of members of the public who decide on the innocent or guilty verdict.
@@micridg what a cool format
For the record I would have gone NG
@@lauragranger9813 I agree, there was not enough evidence for his guilt and actually although I payed quite guilty, I actually thought I would be found innocent and the verdict came as quite a shock.
@@micridg the taking off mid trial probably tipped them to ‘guilty’ but as far as what was presented there, no.
Well I liked it. Would have been an interesting production to be part of!
All based on genuine cases
I think they got the verdict wrong. I think that the mysterious workmen seen onboard by the harbour master introduced a reasonable doubt. They could have been sent by the fiancee or the parents.
It's hardly a reasonable doubt in light of the rest of the evidence. The "mystery" workman was simply the guy delivering the smack, perhaps even concealing it aboard. Or someone looking for something to steal. But, as the prosecution so corrected pointed out, professional drug smugglers aren't in the habit of randomly stashing £200,000 parcels of pure China white heroin on a boat when they have no idea where that boat might be going when it leaves. The logistics of drug smuggling require arrangements of a rather more concrete nature than simply hoping for the best. And let's not forget that they would have had no idea that the boat would develop the necessary mechanical difficulties necessary to place it in their boatyard to begin with. The whole set up is _way_ too random for the kind of professional operation that's being suggested. Such people would have nothing to do with it. Besides, the French Connection ran out of Marseilles.
Combined with the various acts of perjury, his own drug issues, and the fact that he did a runner from court when he was his defence collapsing, the evidence really doesn't leave room for the kind of reasonable doubt you seem to believe it does.
I agree. The defence summation was also correct to say the prosecution had not presented any real facts to prove him guilty. Just a bizarre theory about his girlfriend's motives (no proof for that either).
why would the parents plant 200k worth of drugs on him..or her?
@34:00 That lawyer eoukd be more useful in the interrogation room. He’d save the court a tremendous waste of time. 😅 Talk about the right man in the wrong place! 🤭
Update: She blew the whole thing open for lying multiple times! He knew he was sunk! She foolishly convicted him.
How times have changed today in 2021 the judge would ask for joint before pronouncing sentence
What?
This was case #6
Charles Lotterby is sitting at the back.
The non-pregnant fiancee chopped and changed her story so many times, that if I'd been on the jury I'd have said: neither the cops nor the lawyers have got to the bottom of what was going on here at all. All that trial managed to ascertain was that there was a very reasonable doubt as to the defendant's guilt: therefore "not guilty" in law.
The son is a school 🏫 boy
tutt regina y cant they say crown
you can't be the plaintiff in your own court
@@rin_etoware_2989 👌
Because in England at least, the wording was always "Regina" or "R" and the defendant. The term "Crown Court" was actually pretty recent. Blame the Normans for bringing in Latin.
@@anonUK interesting
Lot of horse hope they have good excuses