In the Scottish Courts
| DOI | 10.1177/002201835501900105 |
| Date | 01 January 1955 |
| Published date | 01 January 1955 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
In the Scottish Courts
RECENT POSSESSION AS EVIDENCE OF THEFT
Brannan v.
H.M.
Advocate (1954
SL.T.
255)
INthis unsuccessful appeal against conviction of theft, an
attempt was made to restrict
the
doctrine of recent
possession to cases in which the stolen property was found by
the
police in the actual physical possession of
the
person
subsequently charged with stealing it
and
to exclude from its
ambit any case in which an accused had, before the police
traced the property, got rid of it.
This
attempt, which was
founded on
the
case of Fox v. Patterson (1948 J.e.
104),
failed.
Brannan was charged, along with aco-accused, on
indictment in a Sheriff
Court
with theft of a bulky consignment
of foodstuffs. He was
convicted-mainly
on evidence that,
shortly after the disappearance of the foodstuffs from a
canteen, goods substantially corresponding with those stolen
(60 dozen eggs, 73 tins of meat loaf et cetera) had been in his
house.
The
difficulty in
the
case, which gave an opening to
counsel at
the
hearing on Brannan's appeal against his
conviction, was
that
(a) by the time
that
the police traced the
stolen goods they had been transferred to the house of his
co-accused
and
(b) Brannan, although not denying
that
the
goods had previously been in his house, maintained that they
had been delivered there by two strangers and that, on finding
them
there, he had at once instructed his wife to have
them
removed.
The
sheriff's direction to the jury, on which they
convicted, was to
the
effect that, if they were satisfied
that
the
goods which admittedly had been in Brannan's possession
shortly after the commission of the theft were in fact the
stolen goods,
the
onus shifted to Brannan to satisfy
them
that
his explanation was a
true
one.
The
Lord
Justice-General
(Lord
Cooper), announcing
the
dismissal of Brannan's appeal,
said-"
...
On
the
56
To continue reading
Request your trial