H. M. Advocate v Smith
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 27 March 1934 |
| Docket Number | No. 13. |
| Date | 27 March 1934 |
| Court | High Court of Justiciary |
HIGH COURT.
Lord Justice-Clerk.
Crime—Perjury—False statement while giving incompetent evidence—Whether indictable.
Held, by the Lord Justice-Clerk, that an indictment charging the accused with perjury committed while giving evidence, which, although not objected to, was incompetent and should not have been admitted, was an irrelevant indictment.
Robert Smith was charged on an indictment, at the instance of His Majesty's Advocate, which set forth "that on 27th November 1933, in the High Court of Justiciary, Sheriff Court House, County Buildings, Ayr, having been sworn as a witness in the trial of Joseph Turner and Leonard Morency Ord then proceeding in said High Court of Justiciary upon an indictment at the instance of His Majesty's Advocate against them, which indictment is No. 1 of the productions lodged herewith, you did depone to the statements set forth in the schedule1 hereto appended as detailed in the notes of your evidence taken on that date and contained in No. 5 of the productions lodged herewith, the truth as you knew being that on Tuesday, 11th April 1933, said Hugh Graham, Philip Oliphant Wilson, and James M'Lellan did call at your house at Gowanbank, Kilwinning, and report to you that said Joseph Turner and said Leonard Morency Ord had on Sunday, 9th April 1933, solicited bribes from said Philip Oliphant Wilson, and that you then and there expressed surprise and said that it was a ghastly state of affairs and that you would take steps to see that neither said Joseph Turner nor said Leonard Morency Ord was on the bench
when the application of said Hugh Graham came to be dealt with by said Licensing Court, and that you did remember the said incidents."The case came before the Lord Justice-Clerk in the High Court at Ayr on 27th March 1934.
Counsel for the panel objected to the relevancy of the indictment, on the ground, inter alia, that the evidence of the accused, which the Crown alleged to have been knowingly false, was incompetent evidence, and accordingly that perjury could not attach to it. Counsel for the Crown submitted an argument to the contrary effect.2
LORD JUSTICE-CLERK (Aitchison).—The accused in this case is charged on indictment with the crime of perjury. The charge arises out of evidence given by the accused in this Court on 27th November 1933, in the trial of two men, Turner and Ord, who were tried and convicted upon a charge of corruptly soliciting a bribe from a Mr Graham and a Mr Wilson with reference to a licensing matter, contrary to the Public Bodies Corrupt Practices Act, 1889.3 It is important to notice that, in the indictment relating to that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Harpal Singh V. Her Majesty's Advocate
...a failing on the part of the appellant's legal advisors. On further discussion of this matter, under reference to H.M. Advocate v. Smith 1934 J.C. 66, Ms. Ogg accepted that the more correct characterisation might be that the indictment for perjury was irrelevant and should have been challen......
-
Angus v H. M. Advocate
...the panel's attempt to induce S. to alter that account constituted attempted subornation; and appeal dismissed. H. M. Advocate v. Smith, 1934 J. C. 66, referred to. James Heitman Angus was charged at the instance of His Majesty's Advocate on an indictment which set forth that, on 25th and 3......