H. M. Advocate v Coggans
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 19 July 1906 |
| Date | 19 July 1906 |
| Docket Number | No. 28. |
| Court | High Court of Justiciary |
Lord Justice-Clerk.
Indictment—Aggravation—Previous Convictions—Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1887 (50 and 51 Vict. cap. 35), sec. 63—Prevention of Crimes Act, 1871 (34 and 35 Vict. cap. 112), sec. 7.—
An indictment charged theft by housebreaking aggravated by previous convictions of attempts to appropriate property dishonestly. The list of productions annexed to the indictment specified certain previous convictions, under the Prevention of Crimes Act, 1871, sec. 7, of being found in a place with intent to steal.
Held by the Lord Justice-Clerk that these previous convictions fell to be struck out, not being previous convictions of attempts to appropriate property dishonestly, and so not within the requirements of sec. 63 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1887, as to the libelling of previous convictions.
Thomas Coggans and Henry Harwood, prisoners in Dundee prison, were indicted at the instance of His Majesty's Advocate, the charges against them being three charges of housebreaking; ‘and you have
each been previously convicted of dishonest appropriation of property and of attempt to appropriate property dishonestly.’
Among the previous convictions specified in the list of productions annexed to the indictment were two convictions of ‘Con. Prevention of Crimes Act, 1871, sec. 7,’ and three of ‘intent to steal’ against Coggan, and one of ‘intent to steal’ against Harwood.*
Both the accused pleaded guilty at the first diet in the Sheriff Court at Dundee, and were remitted to the High Court for sentence.
At the diet before the High Court, on 14th November 1905, Taylor, for the accused, objected to the libelling, as aggravations of the crimes charged, the previous convictions above specified, and argued;—Section 63 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1887, made it competent to libel, as aggravations of the crime libelled, previous attempts to commit any of the crimes specified, but mere presence in a place with a general intent to commit crime was not the same thing as an attempt to commit a crime.
Graham Stewart, A.-D.—The distinction between attempt to commit a crime and being in a place with intent to commit crime was very thin. The previous convictions objected to were within section 63 of the Act of 1887 fairly read.
Lord Justice-Clerk.—I hold that a conviction of being in a place with intent to commit a crime does not fall within the requirements of...
To continue reading
Request your trial