Criminal Law & Practice in Scotland
| Published date | 01 July 1957 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0032258X5703000304 |
| Date | 01 July 1957 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
CRIMINAL
LAW
AND
PRACTICE
IN
SCOTLAND 163
(old the trial judge that they had explored every avenue. The judge
sent them back again
and
said that they must find one way or another.
Counsel for the appellant submitted
that
that meant a verdict either
of "Guilty of wounding with intent" or
"Not
Guilty,"
but
instead
of
that the
jury
came back with a verdict of unlawful wounding, a lesser
charge. The Court of Criminal Appeal upheld this verdict, which was
in law open to the jury. The Lord Chief Justice said that they may have
reasoned like this:
"We
find these fellows guilty,
but
considering the
character of the prosecutor we are not going to find them guilty except
of the less serious charge."
Criminal
Law
&
Practice
in
Scotland
CONTEMPT
OF
COURT
Graham v. Robert Younger Ltd. (1955, J.C. 28)
WHEN thinking of contempt of court one is apt to consider those
actings which are in themselves obviously contemptuous of court
or authority, i.e. accused or witness arriving in court drunk or causing
disturbance in the court room. There was, however, nothing
of
that
nature in this civil case. The whole circumstances and facts on which
the allegation of contempt were based were somewhat unusual.
Graham had been made bankrupt
and
aJudicial Factor was
appointed. The normal duties of such a person, who is responsible
to the Court which appoints him, is to administer the bankrupt's
estate,
carryon
any business, collect any monies due to the bankrupt
and pay these over to the creditors until all debts are paid.
After the appointment of the Judicial Factor, Graham continued to
interfere in a licensed business in which he had an interest. As he would
not
stay away from the premises the Judicial Factor applied to the
Sheriff who, of course, was sitting as a judge in a civil court, for war-
rant for Graham's arrest. On this warrant being granted, Graham was
arrested and brought before the Court. An Agent, on his behalf, then
appeared and made a promise to the Sheriff that Graham would keep
away from the premises in question. He failed to do so, was again
arrested
and
sentenced to six weeks' imprisonment for contempt
of
court in respect that he had broken the promise given to the Court on
his behalf.
On his appealing the High Court of Justiciary fully endorsed all that
the Sheriff had done, taking the same view that aperson who breaks a
promise given to a court by him, on or his behalf, is in contempt.
The Lord Justice Clerk (Lord Thomson) in the course of his opinion
To continue reading
Request your trial