Bruce v H. M. Advocate
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 08 July 1936 |
| Date | 08 July 1936 |
| Docket Number | No. 16. |
| Court | High Court of Justiciary |
HIGH COURT.
Lord Justice-Clerk. Lord Wark. Lord Carmont.
Evidence—Sufficiency—Identification of accused—Direct identification—Accused not identified by Crown witnesses with commission of crime libelled.
At the trial of an accused, named James Bruce, who was convicted upon an indictment of wilful fire-raising while acting in concert with another named person, the prosecutor did not attempt to have the person in the dock expressly identified by the Crown witnesses, although certain of these witnesses, in deponing to facts relating to the charge, spoke of "the accused James Bruce."
In quashing the conviction on the ground that the evidence of the alleged socius criminis, on which the prosecutor founded his case, had not been sufficiently corroborated, the Court expressed theopinion that the conviction was also open to challenge in respect that the accused had not been directly identified or associated with the crime by the evidence of witnesses who were speaking to facts material to the charge, proper identification in criminal practice being a matter of express question on the part of the prosecutor, and not merely a matter which should be left to implication.
James Bruce was charged on an indictment at the instance of His Majesty's Advocate which set forth that, while acting in concert with Anthony Duthie, farm servant, Portsoy, (1) he did wilfully set fire to a garage in Fordyce, occupied by Alexander George Thomson, general merchant, and (2) did wilfully set fire to a store and garage adjoining these premises, which he himself occupied, with intent to defraud an insurance company. He was tried in the Sheriff Court at Banff before the Sheriff-substitute (More) and a jury and found guilty, and was sentenced to twelve months' imprisonment.
The panel appealed to the High Court of Justiciary against the conviction, in terms of the Criminal Appeal (Scotland) Act, 1926, on the following grounds:—"(1) That the evidence led in support of the charges was not sufficient to warrant a conviction. (2) That the only evidence against the accused was that of an alleged socius criminis, which evidence was uncorroborated."
It appeared from the notes of evidence that, in the course of the trial, no attempt had been made by the prosecutor to have the person in the dock directly identified by the Crown witnesses, although a number of witnesses who were called to speak to certain facts in connexion with the indictment spoke of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Murphy v HM Advocate
-
James Holland v HM Advocate
...v Chief Constable, DurhamUNK [1997] 2 Cr App R 505 Beattie v ScottSCUNK 1990 JC 320; 1991 SLT 110; 1990 SCCR 296 Bruce v HM AdvocateSC 1936 JC 93; 1936 SLT 577 Edwards v UKHRC (1992) 15 EHRR 417 Farmer v HM AdvocateUNK 1991 SCCR 986 Hogg v ClarkSC 1959 JC 7; 1959 SLT 109 Holland v HM Advoca......
-
N.c. V. Her Majesty's Advocate
...an eye-witness to make an identification in court of the accused as the person to whom he is referring in his evidence: Bruce v HM Advocate 1936 JC 93, Stewart v HM Advocate 1980 JC 103, Holland v HM Advocate 2003 SCCR 616 at para 27, Murphy v HM Advocate 2007 SCCR 532 at para 90. Where the......
-
James Holland V. Her Majesty's Advocate
...practice of the Scottish courts to require that an identification of the accused should be made in open court. In Bruce v HM Adv (1936 JC 93), the court held that identification of the accused in a trial should not be left to implication. The Crown should seek express identification of the ......
-
Indexes
.... . . . . . . 125Boyle vHM Advocate 1976JC 32. . . . . . . . . . . . . 21Brodie vHM Advocate [2012]HCJAC 147 . . . . . 10Bruce vHM Advocate 1936JC 93 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9Bushell v Repatriation Commission (1992) 175CLR 408 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 332–333Byrne......
-
The Corroboration Requirement in Scottish Criminal Trials: Should it Be Retained for Some Forms of Problematic Evidence?
...1; Scott vHM Advocate [2007] HCJAC 68; McNally vHMAdvocate [2012] HJAC 156; and CvHM Advocate [2012] HCJAC 139.46 So in Bruce vHM Advocate 1936 JC 93 a number of witnesses indicated that they had seen ‘theaccused, James Bruce’ committing the offence, but none actually pointed him out in cou......