Beattie v HM Advocate
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 04 March 2009 |
| Neutral Citation | [2009] HCJAC 22,[2008] HCJAC 73 |
| Date | 04 March 2009 |
| Docket Number | No 16 |
| Court | High Court of Justiciary |
Appeal Court, High Court of Justiciary
Lord Justice-General (Hamilton), Lord Nimmo Smith, Lord Cullen of Whitekirk
Justiciary - Evidence - Crown relying on statements made by accused - Accused 19 years old and of below average intelligence - Fresh evidence on psychological state of accused - Whether statements reliable - Whether miscarriage of justice
Justiciary - Procedure - Crown relying on statements made by accused - Whether statements fairly obtained - Whether trial judge ought to have conducted trial within a trial in absence of defence motion
Justiciary - Evidence - Crown relying on statements made by accused - Mixed statements - Trial judge failing to give direction on mixed statements - Whether miscarriage of justice
Justiciary - Murder trial - Jury verdict of guilty - Whether verdict one which no reasonable jury, properly directed, could have reached
Justiciary - Procedure - Disclosure - Crown failing to disclose letter - Whether failure denied accused a fair trial
In 1973, the appellant was tried in the High Court of Justiciary on a charge of murder. The victim, aged 23 years, had been attacked whilst walking from her home, through a wooded glen, to the railway station in Carluke, Lanarkshire. She had been stabbed 19 times on the body. The Crown case depended, to a large extent, on various statements made by the appellant, then aged 19 years. After initially denying any knowledge of the crime, the appellant ultimately claimed to have witnessed the attack, which he said had been perpetrated by six unknown persons. The appellant had thereafter been taken to the locus by police officers and had described where and how various parts of the attack had taken place. Whilst the appellant had been cautioned on a number of occasions, he did not have access to a solicitor, nor any family member or support person during his detention in police custody when he made various statements and visited the locus with police officers. Psychiatric evidence was led to the effect that the appellant was emotionally immature and had lower than average intelligence which resulted in his responsibility being "somewhat" but not "substantially" diminished. Tissues bearing blood staining, not of the appellant's blood but of the same type of blood group as the deceased, that group belonging to 43 per cent of the population, had been found in the pocket of the appellant's jacket. The Crown had relied on that evidence as corroboration. In the appellant's first appeal against conviction, following a reference by the Secretary of State, it was argued that there had been insufficient evidence. That appeal was rejected and the argument on sufficiency was not revisited when the case called before the court following a reference by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission.
Before the High Court of Justiciary, the appellant argued that: (1) the trial judge ought to have conducted a trial within a trial to determine whether the appellant's statements had been fairly obtained; (2) the trial judge misdirected the jury in that he failed to give a definition of the crime of murder; (3) the trial judge had misdirected the jury absent a direction on "mixed statements"; (4) the court had been in error in the appellant's first appeal, in holding that the appellant's statements showed such detailed knowledge that the only reasonable inferences were that either he was a spectator or the murderer; (5) no reasonable jury, properly directed, could have convicted the appellant; (6) the failure by the Crown to disclose a letter, containing information to the effect that there was no human blood found within a soil sample into which the murder weapon had been inserted, disabled the appellant from making a better submission at trial, which may have affected the outcome, and he had thereby been denied the right to a fair trial; (7) fresh evidence on the psychological state of the appellant at the time of making statements to the police informed the view that those statements were unreliable.
Held that: (1) the trial judge had been under no obligation to conduct a trial within a trial; any issue of fairness regarding the manner in which admissions had been obtained had been for the defence to raise and in the absence of any motion for a trial within a trial or a ruling on the admissibility of the evidence, the trial judge was under no obligation to make a ruling on admissibility (para 31); in any event the evidence had been fairly obtained and was admissible (paras 32, 33); (2) there had been no misdirection absent a definition of the crime of murder, there having been no need for the trial judge to give a definition in the circumstances of this case (para 35); (3) there had been no misdirection absent a direction on "mixed statements", the trial having long preceded the case of Morrison v HM Advocate in which the court revised the rules on the use of "mixed statements" (para 36); in any event there had been no miscarriage of justice absent such a direction concerning the evidence on the timings of the appellant's presence at the locus and his explanation as to the presence of blood, of the same group as the deceased, on tissues found in his possession (paras 43, 46); (4) there having been no evidence that the detailed knowledge displayed by the appellant had been known to anyone other than the police, and there being no evidence to support the conclusion that it had been supplied to him by the police, it had been reasonable to conclude that the appellant had either witnessed the crime or had perpetrated it (paras 48, 49, 52); (5) the evidence relied upon by the Crown at trial having been cogent, it could not be said that the verdict was one which no reasonable jury, properly directed, could have returned (para 65); (6) no unfairness had resulted from the failure of the Crown to disclose a letter since the information contained in it would have made no practical difference to the conduct of the trial or the jury's deliberations (para 72); (7) the fresh evidence on the psychological state of the appellant had not supported the view that the accounts given by him had been concoctions, nor had they provided any reason to doubt that the appellant, when interviewed, had been incapable of recalling events (para 85) and the fresh evidence had not been sufficient to persuade the court that there had been a miscarriage of justice (para 88); (8) having considered the grounds of appeal individually and cumulative, there had been no miscarriage of justice or unfairness at the appellant's trial (para 90); and appeal refused.
Observed that the fresh evidence on the psychological state of the appellant, insofar as it could be said to support the general contention that he had been susceptible to giving inaccurate answers when questioned, had not provided a satisfactory basis for the contention that the responses were unfairly obtained in circumstances where the particular questions asked and the responses given were unknown (para 89).
George Beattie was charged on an indictment at the instance of the Right Honourable Norman Russell Wylie, Her Majesty's Advocate, the libel of which set forth a charge of murder. The appellant went to trial before Lord Fraser and a jury at the High Court of Justiciary at Glasgow and was convicted as libelled on 4 October 1973. He was sentenced to life imprisonment. The appellant's application for leave to appeal against conviction was refused by the High Court of Justiciary on 13 December 1973. The appellant's case was subsequently referred to the High Court of Justiciary by the Secretary of State. That reference resulted in an appeal, which was refused on 2 December 1994 (1995 JC 33). The appellant subsequently made an application to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, which in July 2001 referred the appellant's case back to the High Court of Justiciary.
Cases referred to:
Advocate (HM) v Goodall (1888) 2 White 1
Balloch v HM AdvocateSC 1977 JC 23; 1977 SLT (Notes) 29
Beattie v HM AdvocateSCUNK 1995 JC 33; 1995 SLT 275; 1995 SCCR 93
Blagojevic v HM AdvocateUNK 1995 SLT 1189; 1995 SCCR 570
Chalmers v HM AdvocateSC 1954 JC 66; 1954 SLT 177
Dickson v HM AdvocateSCUNK [2007] HCJAC 65; 2008 JC 181; 2008 SLT 12; 2008 SCCR 59
Gilmour v HM AdvocateUNK [2007] HCJAC 48; 2007 SLT 893; 2007 SCCR 417
Holland v HM AdvocateUNKUNK [2005] UKPC D1; 2005 1 SC (PC) 3; 2005 SLT 563; 2005 SCCR 417
Jeffrey v HigsonUNK 2003 SLT 1053; 2003 SCCR 490
King v HM AdvocateSCUNK 1999 JC 226; 1999 SLT 604; 1999 SCCR 330
McCutcheon v HM AdvocateUNK 2002 SLT 27; 2002 SCCR 101
McDonald v HM AdvocateUNKUNK [2008] UKPC 46; 2008 SLT 993; 2008 SCCR 954; [2009] HRLR 3; [2009] UKHRR 46
McInnes v HM AdvocateSCUNK [2008] HCJAC 53; 2009 JC 6; 2008 SLT 941; 2008 SCCR 869; 2008 SCL 1271
McLeod v HM Advocate (No 2)SCUNK 1998 JC 67; 1998 SLT 233; 1998 SCCR 77
Manuel v HM AdvocateSC 1958 JC 41; 1959 SLT 23; 1958 SLT (Notes) 44
Megrahi v HM AdvocateSCUNK 2002 JC 99; 2002 SLT 1433; 2002 SCCR 509
Mills v HM Advocate (No 2)UNK 2001 SLT 1359; 2001 SCCR 821
Miln v CullenSCUNK 1967 JC 21; 1967 SLT 35; [1969] Crim LR 37
Morrison v HM AdvocateSCUNK 1990 JC 299; 1991 SLT 57; 1990 SCCR 235
Murphy v HM Advocate 1975 SLT (Notes) 17
R v LambertUNKELRWLRUNKUNKUNK [2001] UKHL 37; [2002] 2 AC 545; [2001] 3 WLR 206; [2001] 3 All ER 577; [2002] 1 All ER 2; [2001] 2 Cr App R 28
R (Hurst) v London Northern District CoronerUNKELRWLRUNK [2007] UKHL 13; [2007] 2 AC 189; [2007] 2 WLR 726; [2007] 2 All ER 1025; [2007] HRLR 23
Sinclair v HM AdvocateUNKUNK [2005] UKPC D2; 2005 1 SC (PC) 28; 2005 SLT 553; 2005 SCCR 446; [2005] HRLR 26
Thompson v Advocate (HM)SC 1968 JC 61; 1968 SLT 339
Thompson v CroweSCUNK 2000 JC 173; 1999 SLT 1434; 1999 SCCR 1003
Wardrop v HM AdvocateUNK [2005] HCJAC 19; 2005 SCCR 226
The appeal called before the High Court of Justiciary, comprising the Lord Justice-General (Hamilton), Lord Nimmo...
To continue reading
Request your trial