Grant v H. M. Advocate
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 02 November 1937 |
| Date | 02 November 1937 |
| Docket Number | No. 3. |
| Court | High Court of Justiciary |
HIGH COURT.
Lord Justice-Clerk. Lord Mackay. Lord Wark.
Evidence in Criminal Cases—Admissibility—Hearsay—Jury trial—Statement by third party incriminating accused incorporated in medical report—Report read to jury—Whether reference to statement competent for limited purpose of establishing credibility of third party.
At a trial in the Sheriff Court upon an indictment charging the panel with putting a poisonous liquid into a bottle containing milk which was to be consumed by a child with intent to do it grievous bodily harm, the only evidence directly incriminating the panel was that of the panel's wife, the child's mother. The doctor who had attended the child when it became ill was also examined as a witness for the Crown, and his report was proved and its terms disclosed to the jury. The report contained this statement:—"On asking the mother what was wrong with the child she told me that it had been poisoned. She said that her husband had done it." A conviction followed.
In an appeal under the Criminal Appeal (Scotland) Act, 1926,—Held that the statement in the report, being purely hearsay evidence, should not have been disclosed to the jury, even for the limited purpose of establishing the credibility of the mother's evidence; and conviction set aside.
Evidence in Criminal Cases—Jury trial—Medical report—Proper subject-matter of report—Duty of prosecutor when submitting to a jury a report containing hearsay matter prejudicial to accused.
Observations in deprecation of a growing practice among medical men of incorporating in their reports statements made to them by third parties, and upon the duty of the prosecutor to take care that such statements in the reports, if prejudicial to the accused, should not be brought to the notice of the jury.
James Grant was charged in the Sheriff Court at Fort-William on an indictment at the instance of His Majesty's Advocate, which set forth that "on 12th and 13th July 1937, in a room occupied by you at 6 Glen Nevis Place, Fort-William, Parish of Kilmallie and County of Inverness you did put a liquid, viz., ear lotion containing carbolic, into a bottle containing milk to be consumed by Mary Williamson aged one year, illegitimate infant daughter of your wife Margaret Grant, both residing with you at 6 Glen Nevis Place aforesaid, in order that the said Mary Williamson might partake of said milk containing carbolic, with intent to do her grievous bodily harm, and the said milk containing carbolic was duly taken by said Mary Williamson to her grievous bodily...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McEwan v HM Advocate
...adequate directions to the jury in regard to the purpose for which alone the letter might be taken into account. Grant v. H. M. Advocate, 1938 J. C. 7,distinguished. Observed, per Lord Moncrieff, that a prosecutor should not, unless he deems it essential for the establishment of his case, m......
-
Begum v HM Advocate
...Advocate [2014] HCJAC 70; 2014 SCCR 489 Gilroy v HM Advocate [2013] HCJAC 18; 2013 JC 163; 2013 SCL 308; 2013 GWD 5–129 Grant v HM Advocate 1938 JC 7; 1938 SLT 113 Hainey v HM Advocate [2013] HCJAC 47; 2014 JC 33; 2013 SLT 525; 2013 SCCR 309; 2013 SCL 499 Lauder v HM Advocate [2016] HCJAC 3......
-
When the exception is the rule: Rationalising the medical exception in Scots law
...could 5 Indeed, so-called drugging is a well-known and nominate example of the crime of real injury in Scots law (see Grant v HM Advocate 1938 JC 7), and so, but for the medical exception, even the anaesthetist who prepared the patient for surgery would be guilty of a specic crime but for ......
-
WHEN THE EXCEPTION IS THE RULE: RATIONALISING THE MEDICAL EXCEPTION IN SCOTS LAW
...could 5 Indeed, so-called drugging is a well-known and nominate example of the crime of real injury in Scots law (see Grant v HM Advocate 1938 JC 7), and so, but for the medical exception, even the anaesthetist who prepared the patient for surgery would be guilty of a specic crime but for ......