H. M. Advocate v Lieser
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 01 March 1926 |
| Docket Number | No. 15. |
| Date | 01 March 1926 |
| Court | High Court of Justiciary |
Ld. Constable.
Evidence—Competency—Statements of panel—Answers to questions—Question addressed by one police officer to another—Reply by prisoner.
A man, apprehended on a charge of murder, was sitting in the charge room of a police office in which there were also present a detective, who had been conversing with the prisoner, and an inspector and a sergeant, who were busy on matters concerned with the charge. The detective, intending to address the inspector and the sergeant, asked, ‘Was there a razor found among his property?’ The prisoner made a statement in reply.
At the subsequent trial of the prisoner Lord Constable refused to allow evidence as to his statement, holding that, as the prisoner might have thought that the question was addressed to him, his statement could not be regarded as a voluntary statement.
Observation on the necessity, especially in murder cases, of keeping prisoners apart from the investigations of the police.
Thomas Lieser was charged in the High Court at Glasgow on an indictment which get forth ‘that, On 30th November 1925 in Vinegar Hill Showground at 51 Great Eastern Road, Glasgow, you did assault Edward Tucker, then residing in a caravan in said showground, and did cut him on the neck with a knife or other sharp instrument, and did murder him.’
The case was tried before Lord Constable and a jury on 1st March 1926.
The following point regarding the admissibility of evidence arose in the course of the trial.
It appeared that the accused, who, when he was charged, had made a statement denying the murder, was afterwards sitting in the charge room of the police office, where were also present a detective, an inspector, and a sergeant. The inspector was writing a statement regarding the case, and the sergeant was sorting out certain articles which the police had taken into their possession when the accused was apprehended. The detective, who had been in conversation with the accused, said, ‘Was there a razor found among his property?’ The question was meant for the inspector and the sergeant, but was not definitely addressed to anyone in particular. The Advocate-depute having, in the course of his examination of the detective, asked the question, ‘Did the accused say anything when you addressed that remark?’ counsel for the panel objected to the competency of the question.
Argued for the panel;—Although the question had not been meant for the accused, he...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Andrew Thompson V. Procurator Fiscal, Hamilton
...attached to the statement emitted in the particular circumstances, can readily be found in the books. I mention H. M. Advocate v. Lieser 1926 J.C. 88; H. M. Advocate v. Cunningham 1939 J.C. 61 and H. M. Advocate v. Fox 1946 J.C. 30. While the exact procedure adopted seems to have varied, th......
-
Chalmers v H. M. Advocate
...3 Adam, 475. 1 1945 J. C. 61, Lord Justice-Clerk Cooper at p. 66. 2 H. M. Advocate v. Aitken, 1926 J. C. 83. H. M. Advocate v. Lieser, 1926 J. C. 88, was also referred 3 Costello v. Macpherson, 1922 J. C. 9, Lord Justice-Clerk Scott Dickson at p. 12; Mills v. H. M. AdvocateSC, 1935 J. C. 77......
-
Thompson v Crowe
...Advocate (HM) v CunninghamSC 1939 JC 61 Advocate (HM) v Elder (Mary) (1827) Syme 71 Advocate (HM) v FoxSC 1947 JC 30 Advocate (HM) v Lieser 1926 JC 88 Advocate (HM) v Mahler and Berrenhard (1857) 2 Irv 634 Advocate (HM) v Proudfoot (1882) 4 Coup 590 Advocate (HM) v RiggSC 1946 JC 1 Advocate......
-
HM Advocate v McSwiggan
...following authorities were referred to in the course of the arguments:—H. M. Advocate v. Aitken, 1926 J. C. 83; H. M. Advocate v. Lieser, 1926 J. C. 88;H. M. Advocate v. Keen, 1926 J. C. 1; Mills v. H. M. AdvocateSC, 1935 J. C. 77; Lewis on Evidence, pp. 322, 323; Dickson on Evidence, (Grie......