Cameron v H. M. Advocate. Wright v H. M. Advocate. Reilly v H. M. Advocate
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 25 March 1959 |
| Docket Number | No. 13. |
| Date | 25 March 1959 |
| Court | High Court of Justiciary |
HIGH COURT.
Lord Justice-General. Lord Carmont. Lord Russell.
Crime—Evidence—Crimes involving the use of violence—Doctrine of recent possession—Whether doctrine available to establish guilt of theft by opening lockfast places by means of explosives.
Two accused were charged with theft by opening lockfast places by means of explosives. There was no evidence connecting them with the locus or with the use of explosives, but there was evidence that they had been in possession of the stolen goods within two days of the theft.
Held that the doctrine of recent possession applied to aggravated forms of theft, such as theft by opening lockfast places by means of explosives.
Opinion that the doctrine could not be applied in proving the assault, if a charge of physical assault was involved with the charge of theft.
Christie v. H. M. Advocate, 1939 J. C. 72,explained and followed.
Crime—Evidence—Theft—Reset—Doctrine of recent possession—Fingerprints of accused on stolen goods—No other evidence against accused—Whether fingerprint evidence sufficient by itself to establish possession.
The fingerprints of an accused were found de recenti on four sheets of stamps which were identified as having been stolen. The accused explained that he had been shown the stamps by a co-accused who was seeking to sell them to him, that he handled them in order to see what they were, and that, having realised that they were stolen goods, he told his co-accused that he wished to have nothing to do with them. There was no other evidence against him. The accused having been convicted of an aggravated form of theft,—
Held that the evidence of the presence of the fingerprints of the accused on the stolen goods was not in itself sufficient to establish possession by him of the stolen goods; and convictionquashed.
Thomas Cameron, William Campbell Wright and Thomas Reilly were charged in the High Court at Edinburgh on an indictment at the instance of Her Majesty's Advocate which set forth "that you did on 25th October 1958, break into Portobello Post Office, Windsor Place, Portobello, Edinburgh, and there by means of explosives, force open a lockfast safe and steal therefrom surrendered National Savings Stamps to the value of £106, 5s., Dog and Gun Licences to the value of £15, 17s. 6d., Television Licences to the value of £268, Postage, National Savings and National Insurance Stamps to the value of £2875, 7s. 0½d., Gift Tokens to the value of £10, 15s., Savings Certificates to the value of £1708, 10s., Premium Savings Bonds to the value of £520, Postal Orders to the value of £656, 9s. 5d. and £904, 6s. 5d. of money."
On 11th February 1959, after a trial before the Lord Justice-Clerk (Thomson) and a jury, the panels were unanimously found guilty as libelled.
Thereafter Cameron presented a note of application for leave to appeal against conviction which, as subsequently amended, contained the following grounds of appeal:—"(a) The evidence, being circumstantial and limited to proof of the recent possession of part of the stolen property, was insufficient to support the verdict … (c) The presiding Judge erred in directing the jury that proof of recent possession of the stolen property, or part thereof, was sufficient to entitle them to convict the accused of opening a lockfast place with explosives."
Wright presented a similar note which, as subsequently amended, contained the following ground of appeal:—"(1) There was insufficient evidence in law to entitle the jury to find the applicant guilty as libelled, in respect that the only evidence incriminating the applicant was evidence of his unexplained recent possession of certain of the stolen goods, while the crime libelled was a crime involving the use of violence."
Reilly presented a similar note...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Calvin Powell and Another v R
....’ (Emphasis supplied) 66 The principle set out in Christie was applied in another Scottish case,Cameron and Others v H M Advocate [1959] JC 59 [1959] JC 59, where the method of taking involved the use of explosives. Indeed, in respect of one of the appellants in that case, it was held that......
-
Ronique Raymond v R
...possession and of assault and for this submission he referred us to a dictum from Lord Justice-General (Clyde) in the case of Cameron v H.M. Advocate 1959 JC 59, 64 that: ‘If a charge of physical assault on another person were involved as well as theft, there would, in my opinion, be no war......
-
McDonald v HM Advocate
...Cooper in Fox v. PattersonSC1948 J.C. 104 at p. 108, as commented upon by Lord Justice-General Clyde in Cameron v. H.M. AdvocateSC1959 J.C. 59 at p. 63 referred to. James McFarlane McDonald and Margaret Hutchison McPake or McDonald were charged in the sheriffdom of Tayside, Central and Fife......