Criminal Law and Practice in Scotland
| Published date | 01 January 1950 |
| Date | 01 January 1950 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0032258X5002300104 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
18
THE
POLICE
JOURNAL
who habituallycommittedcrime, it might be of a petty nature, who
must,
therefore, be kept in custody,
but
who, it might be hoped, would
not
end
his life in prison.
"
IN
ANy
BUILDING"
WITH
INTENT
R. v. Parkin
The
question in R. v. Parkin (1949, 2
All
E.R. 651) was what do
the words "being found in any
building"
mean in section 28 of
the
Larceny Act, 1916, which provides
that
every person who shall be
found by night in any building with intent to commit any felony
therein shall be guilty of a misdemeanour.
The
answer given by
the
Court
of Criminal Appeal was
that
one has to apply
the
ordinary
meaning to the words unless
the
context requires
them
to be given
some unusual meaning.
The
ordinary meaning of
the
words in
the
section is
that
the
person
must
be found inabuilding.
The
circumstances
of
the
case showed, in
the
opinion of
the
Court,
that
the
appellant was
not
found in the building
but
that
he was found outside
the
building
trying to get in. Shortly after midnight a police officer passing near a
cinema saw
him
half-way up some piping at
the
side of
the
building
with his foot at
the
junction of two pipes and his head
and
shoulders
close to a window.
In
the
police officer's opinion, though he could
not
see clearly,
the
appellant
had
one of his hands through
the
window
for
the
purpose of gripping
the
sill
and
pulling himself into
the
building.
At
the
trial
the
defence
submitted
on these facts
that
he was
not
in
the
building for
the
purposes of section 28 (4).
The
prosecution
argued
that
if he
had
been charged
under
section 27 (2) with breaking
and
entering
the
fact
that
he
had
one
arm
through
the
window would
be a sufficient
entry
for the purposes of constituting
that
offence. He
was convicted at quarter sessions
but
on appeal
the
argument of
the
defence was accepted
and
the
conviction quashed.
The
Court made
clear
that
whatever other offence he might have been guilty of, he was
not
guilty of
the
offence with which he was charged, namely being
found in a building with
intent
to commit a felony.
Criminal
Law
and Practice in Scotland
ROAD
TRAFFIC
ACT
1930,
SEC.
IS
Murray v. Muir
ONE is familiar with
the
suggestion frequently made by defence
agent or counsel in a "
drunk
in
charge"
case
that
the
accused
should
not
be convicted because,
in
point
of fact, he
did
successfully
To continue reading
Request your trial