In the Scottish Courts
| Published date | 01 April 1940 |
| Date | 01 April 1940 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/002201834000400207 |
| Subject Matter | In the Scottish Courts |
In the Scottish Courts
DE
RECENTI
POSSESSION OF STOLEN GOODS
THE
doctrine of "
recent"
possession has been part and
parcel of the criminal law of Scotland for over two
hundred
years. (Hume cites a case in 1701.)
Throughout
that period, it has, one may safely assume, been frequently
invoked and acted
upon;
yet, even now, its precise implica-
tions are by no means finally settled and doubts must remain
in the minds of those whose
duty
it is to apply it in everyday
practice.
The
recent decision of the High Court in Christie v.
H.M.
Advocate (1939, J.C. 72) serves only to accentuate
those doubts.
The
facts of Christie's case are instructive. Being charged,
in the Sheriff
Court
at Paisley, on an indictment which set
forth that he did
"between
r
zth
and
zoth
March, 1939,
break into the house known as ' Elvsium 'situated in Carleton
Drive, Giffnock,
and
there steal a necklet and apendant,
aplatinum wrist watch, adress watch, and five shillings of
money",
Christie denied this charge. At the trial, before
Sheriff-Substitute Hamilton and ajury, it was proved that
the house had been broken into between
rzth
and 16th
March;
that the articles specified in the complaint had been stolen
therefrom;
that on 17th
March
the panel pawned one of
the articles; that on arrest, shortly thereafter he had the
others in his possession; that, after arrest, he first made
averbal statement
that
he " got
them
from a fellow
";
and
that he later gave a detailed written statement naming a
man Nicol (who, when adduced as a witness at the trial,
denied the transaction) as
the'
fellow'
and giving an account
of the circumstances which clearlv showed
that
he had been
guilty of reset, i.e. that he knew when he received them,
o
Z09
To continue reading
Request your trial