In the Scottish Courts
| Published date | 01 April 1976 |
| Date | 01 April 1976 |
| DOI | 10.1177/002201837604000209 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
In
the Scottish Courts
Comments
on
cases
CORROBORATIO~
McLaughlan and
Another
v. H..H.
Advocate
All Scots criminal lawyers know
that
in general the
Crown's
case
against
an accused
must
consist
of
corroborated
evidence,
at
least so far
as concerns
material
facts
such
as identification. Some of the case law
allows the
Crown
to do this by
what
might
be considered devious
means
and
the recent case of Mcl.aughlan and
Another
v. H.JI.
Advocate
(High
Court
on
appeal,
27th
November,
1975 as yet
unreported)
illustrates the difficulties which
can
arise when the case law is misun-
derstood.
The
accused were
charged
with theft by housebreaking
and
the
principal
evidence
at
their
trial was from a
socius
criminis
who
implicated
fully
both
accused.
The
Crown
sought
corroboration
from a lady who
spoke to the arrival
at
her
house
of the
socius,
carrying
asack
presuma-
bly
containing
the proceeds
of
the break-in.
She
also said there were
two
men
with
him,
but
said she did not see
them
because they were
downstairs.
The
Crown
then
led police evidence to the effect
that
the
woman
had
made
an
earlier
statement
to the police disclosing
that
the
two
men
were the two accused.
This
evidence was
admitted
by the
Sheriff
and
the accused were convicted.
On
appeal,
the
High
Court
held
that
the Sheriff
had
wrongly
admitted
the evidence by wrongly invoking the well known case of
Muldoon
v.
Herron
(1970
S.L. T. 228; 34
j.c.t:
274) to
support
aproposi-
tion for which it was
not
au thority.
Muldoon
is of course to the effect that
even
although
awitness denies
that
the accused were the culprits
and
denies identifiying
them
to
the
police,
then
provided
he does
admit
to
having
pointed
out
the
perpetrators
to the police earlier, evidence
can
be
taken
from the police
that
the persons
pointed
out
are
the now
accused.
In
McLaughlan,
the
case of
Muldoon
was
not
even in point, the
statement
made
to the police being simply
hearsay
and
thus
incompe-
tent.
There
being
no
other
evidence to
corroborate
the
socius,
the case
against
the accused
had
failed
and
the
High
Court
quashed
the convic-
tions.
IDENTIFICATION OF
THE
ACCUSED
Bennett
v. H.M.
Advocate
It is a well
known
saying in prosecution circles in
Scotland
that
Messrs.
Muldoon
and
Moorov
are
a
prosecutor's
best friends.
The
116
To continue reading
Request your trial