Cryans v Nixon
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 13 October 1954 |
| Docket Number | No. 1. |
| Date | 13 October 1954 |
| Court | High Court of Justiciary |
HIGH COURT.
Lord Justice-Clerk. Lord Mackintosh. Lord Birnam.
Evidence—Presumption—Theft—Possession of goods recently stolen—Character of possession—Goods found on premises of accused—Persons other than accused having access to premises—Whether onus on accused to rebut presumption of guilt.
At the trial of a garage proprietor charged with the theft of motor accessories and scrap metal, evidence was led to the effect that he was the occupier of two sheds which were kept unlocked and to which his customers had access late at night and in the early morning; that the accused's premises were about 200 yards distant from the premises from which the goods had been stolen; that on the morning following the theft tracks were observed leading from those premises to the accused's premises; that, on a search being made, some of the stolen property was found under a coat or rug in one of the accused's sheds; and that the accused, when asked for an explanation, replied that he knew nothing about the property in question. The Sheriff-substitute treated the case as a typical one for the application of the doctrine of recent possession, rejected the explanation, and convicted the accused.
Held that the proved facts did not entitle the Sheriff-substitute to view the case as one in which there was an onus on the accused to rebut the inference of guilt arising from the possession of recently stolen goods; and conviction quashed.
Fox v. Patterson, 1948 J. C. 104, applied.
Thomas Carlin Cryans, garage proprietor, Fullarton, was charged in the Sheriff Court at Airdrie on a complaint at the instance of Andrew Lambie Nixon, Procurator-fiscal, which set forth that "on 19th or 20th May 1954 you did break into the store occupied by James Leonard, within the motor demolisher's yard at Fullarton Avenue, Fullarton, Lanarkshire, and there steal six motor batteries, three motor radiators, two hundred-weights of scrap brass and copper and six crown wheels."
On 25th June 1954, after evidence had been led, the Sheriff-substitute (Stevenson) found the accused guilty as libelled. At the request of the accused he stated a case for appeal to the High Court of Justiciary.
The case set forth that the Sheriff-substitute found the following facts admitted or proved:—"(1) The appellant, who is a garage proprietor, lives with his wife and two children, aged 10 years and 8 months, at and carries on the business of a garage at 151 Causewayside Street, Fullarton. (2) At 151 Causewayside Street there are a house, two sheds and a yard, the whole property covering an area of about one-third acre. (3) His business consists mainly of garaging cars; at the time of the alleged theft he had accommodation for about eleven cars, which was all occupied; in addition to garaging cars he does some repair work; this repair work is not done by himself but by a man who comes in at night. (4) One of the two sheds can be shut and locked, but the other cannot be shut; neither is in fact shut at night. (5) About 200 yards away from the back of the appellant's yard and on the other side of a railway embankment is the back of the motor demolishing yard at Fullarton Avenue, Fullarton, belonging to James Leonard. (6) James Leonard's yard is surrounded by a fence made of corrugated iron sheets. (7) James Leonard deals in spare parts, and stores them and some scrap metal in an old railway van. (8) On the night of 19th May 1954 the old railway van was secured by means of a metal bar and lock, and, to make it more secure, two lorries were placed in front of it. (9) The following morning, when the staff arrived, it was discovered that the lorries had been moved, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wightman and Another v H. M. Advocate
...of applying the doctrine of recent possession, and convictionsquashed. Robertson v. Maxwell, 1951 J. C. 11, applied. Cryans v. Nixon, 1955 J. C. 1, distinguished. George Wightman and Patrick Collins were charged in the Sheriff Court at Airdrie on an indictment at the instance of Her Majesty......
-
Note Of Appeal Against Conviction And Sentence By Lieuwe Hoekstra And Jan Van Rijs And Ronny Van Rijs And Hendrik Van Rijs V. Her Majesty's Advocate
...investigation into the finding of recently stolen property on his premises may constitute a criminative circumstance - see Cryans v. Nixon 1955 J.C. 1; Fox v. Patterson 1948 J.C. 104, per the Lord Justice-General (at p. 109). But that is not the situation here. Here the circumstance founded......
-
Cameron v H. M. Advocate. Wright v H. M. Advocate. Reilly v H. M. Advocate
...to Hume on Crimes, vol. i, p. 111; Dickson on Evidence, (3rd ed.) secs. 73, 157; Fox v. PattersonSC,1948 J. C. 104; Cryans v. NixonSC, 1955 J. C. 1. 5 Christie v. H. M. AdvocateSC, 1939 J. C. 6 Reference was made to Macdonald's Criminal Law, (5th ed.) p. 25. 1 Christie v. H. M. AdvocateSC, ......