CHAPTER 4

A Brutal Robbery

1852

The actual robbery could not be proved …

hen a gang of footpads – William Mitchell, William Jackson and Sarah Brown – set about Thomas Tatem in the street they had no idea that they would present a legal problem for the judge and jury. One of the panel of judges was the famous Justice Maule, and he found the case to be a brain-teaser which he clearly enjoyed.

The three hoodlums grabbed Tatem and threw him to the ground, and then went on to take money from him by force, or so it was alleged. Although in court they were shown to have ‘feloniously made an assault’ – in other words, it was a serious matter with a tough penalty. There was a problem, as there was no prosecutor, and therefore no evidence that they had stolen anything. What was resting on the decision was that if they had done ‘a felonious assault, aggravated, and with an intent to rob’, they were liable to transportation for life. There was going to be a problem in sentencing Sarah Brown, as she had a previous conviction, but the men’s situation was going to take some wrangling.

The issue was whether or not the gang had an intention to rob Tatem, an old man who could not defend himself. If they assaulted him without an intention to rob, then they could escape transportation. Baron Campbell at the Crown Court, argued that their intention was indeed to rob. He wanted the three of them on the ships to Botany Bay. What had to happen was that the jury had to understand that they could return a verdict assuming the gang’s guilt in intending to rob as well as assault the man. Baron Campbell had only one stumbling-block: there were alternative sentences for the crime, dating back to 1837. One possibility was that the culprits could be given only three years’ hard labour. The wigs were put on and the meaning of Lord Campbell’s Act discussed. The arguments led nowhere and they gave in, putting off a decision until the next assizes.

They met again, on 29 May 1852. This is when Maule made an appearance, so there was to be a decision; Maule was recalled by another famous judge as ‘A man of great wit, sound sense and curious humour such as I never heard in any other man. He possessed a particularly keen apprehension. To those who had any real ability he was the most pleasant of judges, but he had little love for mediocrities.’ This time he took the view that the attack had been an ‘aggravated robbery’ – the victim had been ‘roughed up’ in the process. This was indeed an assumption, as there was no clear picture of the events.