Her Majesty's Advocate Against Christopher Mason
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judge | Lady Clark Of Calton,Lady Dorrian,Lord Brodie |
| Neutral Citation | [2015] HCJAC 1 |
| Published date | 05 January 2015 |
| Docket Number | HCA/2014-005144 |
| Date | 12 December 2014 |
| Court | High Court of Justiciary |
| Year | 2015 |
| APPEAL COURT, HIGH COURT OF JUSTICIARY
| |
| Lord Brodie Lady Dorrian Lady Clark of Calton
| [2015] HCJAC 1 HCA/2014-005144/XC
OPINION OF THE COURT
delivered by LORD BRODIE
in
a Crown Appeal under Sections107A of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act1995
by
HER MAJESTY’S ADVOCATE
Appellant;
against
CHRISTOPHER MASON
Respondent:
_____________ |
Appellant: Erroch, AD; Crown Agent
Respondent: Mackenzie; McGeehan & Co
12 December 2014
[1] This is an appeal at the instance of the Crown in terms of sections 107A and 110 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995. The appeal is taken from a decision of the trial judge to uphold the defence submission of no case to answer which was made at the trial of the respondent, Christopher Mason, in Glasgow High Court on 8 December 2014. The procedural circumstances are as follows.
[2] The respondent appeared for trial at Glasgow High Court on 4 December 2014 in respect of an indictment which had a single charge subject to a bail aggravation. The substantive part of the charge is in these terms:
“On 24th February 2014 at The Bank of Scotland, 1475 Dumbarton Road, Glasgow you CHRISTOPHER MASON did assault KN, c/o Police Service of Scotland, Pollok, Glasgow an employee there, threaten her with a firearm or imitation firearm, repeatedly demand money from her and did attempt to rob her“
On 4 December 2014 a jury was empanelled; the joint minute was read and the trial was adjourned to the following day. Evidence was led on Friday 5 December 2014 and Monday 8 December 2014. On 8 December 2014 a submission was made in terms of section 97 of the 1995 Act to the effect that the respondent had no case to answer. The trial judge upheld that submission. It is that decision against which the Crown now appeals. The trial judge suspended the effect of the acquittal in terms of his powers under section 107A(7) of the 1995 Act.
[3] In presenting the appeal, the advocate depute referred to the evidence which had been led and relied on by the Crown at trial as amounting to sufficient evidence to support the indictment. That evidence is narrated in the Crown note of appeal. We would summarise it as follows.
[4] There was clear evidence from the complainer, KN, of facts and circumstances which would amount to an attempted robbery as narrated in the libel in the indictment. A person who it is agreed was the present respondent entered the bank and sat down in front of the complainer wearing what the complainer described as a disguise. That was a long-haired wig, a white baseball cap and a colourful scarf which covered part of his face, at least at certain times during the conversational exchanges between the complainer and the respondent. The fact that the respondent was wearing these items is admitted in terms of the joint minute and these items were recovered from the respondent’s home address. According to the complainer, the respondent demanded money; told her he had a gun; and motioned to his waistband where she saw something which appeared to be silver, wrapped in duct tape and having the appearance of the handle of a gun. Then, according to the complainer, the respondent again motioned toward it briefly. The complainer was shown CCTV footage which was recorded in the bank and she described what appeared there. She was cross-examined about that. She accepted that it was difficult to make out on the CCTV what she had described as being in the waistband of the respondent’s trousers. She gave evidence of the respondent moving his scarf up and down during the conversational exchange in order that his mouth became uncovered and he was better able to speak to her. At the end of his exchanges with the complainer, the respondent, as can be seen on the CCTV footage which the court viewed, stood up and left. At that point the complainer described pressing the panic button to indicate that an incident had occurred. The same CCTV footage was described by a detective constable, DC Keith. As described by DC Keith, the CCTV images show the respondent approaching the complainer, sitting opposite her, motioning to his waistband then leaving. In his evidence, DC Keith specifically pointed out the respondent making what he described as a movement to his waistband area and to his repeatedly putting his scarf over his face.
[5] There was evidence from a witness who had been in the bank, KM. She was waiting in a queue when she saw the respondent stand up and leave. She noticed that he had what she described as a package in the top part of his trousers which he covered by pulling up his trousers as he walked out. Under reference to a police statement, she accepted that she had described that as “grey and shiny” to police officers when they had questioned her.
[6] A further witness, PR, described seeing a man who appeared to be wearing a black wig and being in an agitated state walking up and down and then entering the bank. Shortly afterwards the witness saw the same man running from the bank and pushing something into his trousers. The witness PR described that as something shiny. Its shape was square.
[7] In addition, there was evidence relating to a period shortly after what had occurred in the bank when a male wearing a white baseball cap and a tartan or striped scarf was seen by the witness LB in a garden. At that point a police helicopter was overhead,...
To continue reading
Request your trial