Criminal Law and Practice in Scotland
| Published date | 01 April 1940 |
| Date | 01 April 1940 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0032258X4001300203 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
Criminal Law
and
Practice
In
Scotland
EVIDENCE
AN application of the " rule of recent possession," which is
.£l.novel in modern practice and which may prove of great
service in bringing home charges of theft by housebreaking, was
sanctioned by the High Court of Justiciary in the recent case of
Christiev.
H.M.
Advocate, r939 J.C. 72. Christie was charged
in a Sheriff Court on indictment with theft by housebreaking.
At the trial before Sheriff and Jury, it was proved (r) that the
house in question had been broken
into-by
someone;
(2)
that articles stolen therefrom at the time of the housebreaking
were, within five days at most, found in Christie's possession;
and (3) that, when arrested, Christie made a statement which
implied that, at the time when, according to his story, he
acquired possession of the articles, he knew that they were
stolen and was, therefore, at least guilty of reset. Christie
himself did not give evidence at the trial.
The
Sheriff charged
the jury that the possession of recently stolen property, if no
reasonable explanation was given, would justify a conviction
of theft
or-and
here is the novelty in modern
practice-of
theft by housebreaking if the theft was accomplished by
breaking in, or of reset.
The
jury found the accused guilty of
theft by housebreaking. Against this conviction Christie
appealed.
In affirming the conviction the Judges of the High Court
of Justiciary expressed the opinion (r) that, in such circum-
stances as were proved in Christie's case, the more logical
verdict might be one of guilty of reset, as all that was really
established against the accused was that he was in dishonest
possession of stolen goods;
but
(2) that if a jury went further
and convictedof
theft-or,
where there had been housebreaking,
140
To continue reading
Request your trial