HM Advocate v Fox
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 04 November 1946 |
| Date | 04 November 1946 |
| Docket Number | No. 7. |
| Court | High Court of Justiciary |
HIGH COURT.
Ld. Moncrieff.
Evidence—Competency—Statement of panel to police while in custody—Failure to inform panel of his right to consult solicitor—Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1887, (50 and 51 Vict. cap. 35), sec. 17.
At the trial of a panel charged with forging banknotes objection was taken on his behalf to the admission of evidence as to a statement made by him to the police while in custody, the ground of objection being that in a number of ways the statement had been unfairly obtained, one of them being that he had not been informed before making his statement that he was entitled to the advice of a solicitor. The presiding Judge, Lord Moncrieff, repelled the objection to the admission of the statement, but directed the jury that it was for them to decide whether it had been fairly or unfairly obtained, and that it was only available as evidence if they decided in favour of fairness. As regarded the failure of the police to tell the accused of his right to consult a solicitor, his Lordship reiterated the opinion which he had expressed inH. M. Advocate v. Cunningham, 1939 J. C. 61, that, before any statement is taken from a person who has been arrested and is in the hands of the police, such intimation should be made to him; but he added that, having regard to the adult age and the intelligence of the panel, he did not think that, in the circumstances of the case, the want of intimation would be likely, by itself, to induce them to hold that the statement bad been obtained unfairly.
James Gardiner Fox was tried in the High Court at Glasgow before Lord Moncrieff and a jury on 4th November 1946 upon an indictment charging him with having, while acting along with another person named, falsely made and forged 500 promissory notes of the Clydesdale Bank, Limited, with intent to circulate the same in contravention of the Bank Notes (Forgery) Act, 1805 section 1.
In the course of the evidence for the Crown a detective constable attached to the southern division of the Glasgow Police Force produced a statement made to the police by the panel while under detention. At earlier stages and immediately before making the statement the panel had been duly cautioned, but he had not been informed prior to making the statement that he was entitled to have the help of a solicitor.
Counsel for the panel objected to the statement being admitted as evidence, upon the ground that it had in several respects been unfairly...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Her Majesty's Advocate V. Lee John Mccann And William Somerville
...and the presence of a solicitor at a police interview had been considered in H M Advocate v Cunningham 1939 JC 61 and H M Advocate v Fox 1947 JC 30. While the desirability of such intimation had been affirmed it was not part of Scots law that a statement made to police officers in circumsta......
-
Andrew Thompson V. Procurator Fiscal, Hamilton
...was doing nothing more than reflecting what had been the position in trials long before Chalmers. For instance, in H. M. Advocate v. Fox 1947 J.C. 30 Lord Moncrieff repelled a defence objection and allowed evidence of a statement to be led. At the time of his ruling he explained to the jury......
-
Chalmers v H. M. Advocate
...Morrison v. BurrellSC, 1947 J. C. 43, Lord Moncrieff at p. 49. 12 H. M. Advocate v. CunninghamSC, 1939 J. C. 61;H. M. Advocate v. FoxSC, 1947 J. C. 30. 1 H. M. Advocate v. M'GuiganSC, 1936 J. C. 16;Lawrie v. MuirSC, 1950 J. C. 2 Gracie v. Stuart, 5 Coup. 579, 11 R. (J.) 22. 1 [1914] A. C. 5......
-
Thompson v Crowe
...Advocate (HM) v Aitken 1926 JC 83 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 Advocat......