Criminal Law and Practice in Scotland
| Published date | 01 July 1959 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0032258X5903200307 |
| Date | 01 July 1959 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
Criminal
Law
aud
Pra
...
tiee
in
SeotIand
BAIL
THE
CASE of H.M. Advocate v. Docherty, 1959 S.L.T. (Notes) p. 50
dealt with the short question of the discretion of a Sheriff to allow
bail.
The
accused had no fixed abode and was charged with nine
cases of fraud. During the winter months he lived with his father-
in-law and during the summer toured the country in a caravan.
The only ground of objection to bail was that he had no fixed
abode. Bail was offered to the amount of £100 which the Sheriff
accepted. Lord Sorn refused to interfere with the Sheriff's decision.
HANDWRITING
Richardson v. Paterson. 1957, J.e. 7, was a case of theft, the
decision in which turned on the question of sufficiency of evidence.
Certain Army Allowance Books were stolen and warrants in them
cashed.
The
Sheriff who heard the case came to the view that the
wife forged the signatures and then handed them to her husband.
The attack on the evidence was based on the fact that the crucial
evidence involving the wife was only opinionative evidence given
by police officers. In support of his argument Counsel for the
accused referred to Macdonald on the Criminal Law of Scotland,
5th Edn., p. 326. There it is said that the evidence of professional
witnesses as to writings though competent is not by itself sufficient
proof.
The
Judges in the High Court of Justiciary, however, would
not accept this as sound and
modem
law. They pointed out
that
in
olden days the so-called experts were lithographers and tradesmen
with no scientific training, and contrasted that with
modem
methods
carried out by specially trained investigators and elaborate equip-
ment. They took the view that the test of the acceptance of such
evidence was the skill and experience of the investigators coupled
with the amount and nature of the material available for comparison.
COMPLIANCE
WITH
STATUTORY
REQUIREMENTS
In previous issues we have had occasion to comment on the need
to follow strictly procedure laid down by Act of Parliament.
The
case of Cuthbert v. Holliss, reported in 1958 S.L.T. (Sh. Ct. reports)
at p. 51 again underlines that comment. An accused person who
had been involved in a motor accident was
not
warned in terms of
section 21 of the Road Traffic Act until
71
hours afterwards. This
lulv-Scptcmber
1959 193
To continue reading
Request your trial