H. M. Advocate v Martin
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 30 September 1955 |
| Docket Number | No. 1. |
| Date | 30 September 1955 |
| Court | High Court of Justiciary |
HIGH COURT.
Lord Cameron.
Crime—Attempting to defeat ends of justice—Relevancy of indictment—Court's power to declare new crimes.
Held by Lord Cameron that an indictment charging one accused with absconding from legal custody, two others with aiding and abetting him in absconding, and all three with attempting to defeat the ends of justice was relevant.
Edward Joseph Martin, John Harvey and Patrick Connelly Meechan were charged on an indictment at the instance of Her Majesty's Advocate which set forth that "you, Edward Joseph Martin, having on 4th March 1954 been sentenced to five years' imprisonment at the High Court of Justiciary, Glasgow, and on 22nd July 1954 to twelve months' imprisonment at the Sheriff Court, Aberdeen, said sentences to run consecutively, and having been lawfully confined in the Prison of Peterhead, from which prison you were from time to time escorted to work in the Admiralty Yard, Keith Inch, Peterhead, and you having conceived the felonious intention of defeating the ends of justice by escaping from legal custody, and you, John Harvey and Patrick Connelly Meechan, knowing that you, Edward Joseph Martin, were from time to time escorted to work as aforesaid, and having conceived the felonious intention of defeating the ends of justice by effecting the escape of you, Edward Joseph Martin, from legal custody, you, Edward Joseph Martin, did on 14th March 1955 at the Admiralty Yard aforesaid, where you, Edward Joseph Martin, were then working under the control of and in the legal custody of Arthur Cadger, an officer of said Prison, surmount the perimeter fence of said Yard, and in Pleasure Walk, Keith Inch aforesaid, near the Old Pilot House, enter a motor car which you, John Harvey and Patrick Connelly Meechan, had brought there for the purpose of effecting the escape of you, Edward Joseph Martin, as aforesaid, and you, John Harvey and Patrick Connelly Meechan, did convey you, Edward Joseph Martin, in said motor car to Glasgow, and you, Edward Joseph Martin, did abscond from legal custody and remain at large until 14th April 1955, and you, John Harvey and Patrick Connelly Meechan, did aid and abet you, Edward Joseph Martin, in absconding and you, Edward Joseph Martin, John Harvey and Patrick Connelly Meechan, did attempt to defeat the ends of justice."
The panels, who had stated objections to the relevancy of the indictment, were tried at a sitting of the High Court of Justiciary at...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Her Majesty's Advocate V. Mark Harris
...to pervert the course of justice was not of recent origin: its genesis was found in the works of Hume and Alison (HM Advocate v Martin 1956 JC 1, per Lord Cameron at page 3). The offence covered a broad spectrum of behaviour (Hume, i, 366 et seq; Alison, i, 488). It was not restricted to th......
-
HM Advocate v Harris (No 2) [Appeal Court, High Court of Justiciary]
...decision by bill of advocation. Cases referred to: Advocate (HM) v MannionSCUNK 1961 JC 79; [1962] Crim LR 775 Advocate (HM) v MartinSC 1956 JC 1; 1956 SLT 193 Advocate (HM) v Rae and Little (1845) 2 Brown 476 Allison v HM AdvocateUNK [2010] UKSC 6; 2010 SC (UKSC) 19; 2010 SLT 261; 2010 SCC......
-
Varey v Advocate (HM)
...and we were referred to indictments in the case of Manson to which the trial judge referred and to the case of H.M. Advocate v. MartinSC 1956 J.C. 1 which appear to bear out that the practice is still in the same terms as described by Hume in the passage referred to. The trial judge indicat......
-
Hanley v HM Advocate
...to: Advocate (HM) v Harris (No 2) [2010] HCJAC 102; 2011 JC 125; 2010 SCCR 931; 2011 SCL 54; 2010 GWD 35–724 Advocate (HM) v Martin 1956 JC 1; 1956 SLT 193 Baxter v HM Advocate 1998 JC 219; 1998 SLT 414; 1997 SCCR 437 Dalton v HM Advocate 1951 JC 76; 1951 SLT 294 Docherty v Brown 1996 JC 48......