Criminal Law and Practice in Scotland
| Published date | 01 January 1952 |
| Date | 01 January 1952 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0032258X5202500104 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
20
THE
POLICE
JOURNAL
lawfully and maliciously kUling
the
dog,
the
justices found that, while
the
appellant acted
under
considerable provocation,
"he
did
not
exhaust every practicable means of stopping
the
dog from attacking
the
fowls," and they convicted
and
fined him. His appeal to
the
High
Court
succeeded, the conviction being quashed.
The
justices
had
in
mind
that
the
appellant could have complained to a court of summary jurisdiction
under
section 2of
the
Dogs Act, 1871, and obtained an
order
that
the
dog should be
kept
under
control.
The
High
Court
pointed
out
that
there is an old proverb
about
shutting
the
door after
the
steed has
been
stolen, and, if
the
appellant
had
done that, afortnight
or
three
weeks
might
have passed before he got his
order
and
meanwhile
the
dog would
probably have destroyed all the fowls.
It
was held
that
the
justices
had
approached
the
case from a wrong point of view.
The
question was
not
whether the appellant took every practicable means of stopping
the
dog,
but
whether he acted reasonably in what he did.
In
the
Court's
opinion
he did so act.
Criminal Law and Practice in Scotland
PERVERTING THE COURSE OF JUSTICE
Dalton v.
H.M.
Advocate. (1951
S.L.T.
294)
OUR previous notice of this case, based on a
short
report in
SL.T.
Notes, failed to do justice to its significance. Afuller report, now
available, makes
the
matter
much
clearer.
It
will be recalled
that
the
charge was of a most unusual
nature-
"that,
on
May
rzth, 1950, in
the
premises occupied by F. M. at
208 Garscube Road, Glasgow, you did
pretend
to
Theresa
Sharkey or
Sally [address]
that
you were a friend of William Wilson,
then
in
custody on a charge of theft from the said
F.M.
and
in connection with
which charge she was an eye-witness,
that
you desired
her
to help
him
and
that
if she would refrain from identifying
John
McGuiness,
then
wanted by
the
Police as also involved in said charge, it would help
the
said William Wilson . . . and you did thus attempt to . . . pervert
the
course of justice."
The
charge was made on indictment
and
the
accused,
being convicted, appealed, arguing
that
his conduct
did
not
amount to
acrime known to
the
law of Scotland.
The
appeal failed.
The
main
argument
for
the
appellant, at
the
hearing of
the
appeal,
was
that
he
had
done no more
than
attempt
to induce aperson to give
a false statement in circumstances where no proceedings
had
begun.
It
was contended
that
such action constituted acrime only if carried
out
in the course of proceedings and authorities alleged to be in
support
of this view were cited by counsel.
The
High
Court
judges
unani-
mously rejected this argument.
"I
have
not
the
slightest hesitation,"
said
the
Lord
Justice-Clerk, "
that
the
facts constitute acrime.
What
he was charged with
and
what he was found guilty of was taking steps
To continue reading
Request your trial