Khalid v HM Advocate
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 17 October 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 8. |
| Date | 17 October 1989 |
| Court | High Court of Justiciary |
JC
L.J.-G. Hope, Lords Brand, Sutherland.
Crime—Art and part—Essential features of doctrine of art and part—Whether essential that knowledge be proved on part of both appellants and that it can be proved that there was a common criminal enterprise between them.
Trial—Judge's charge—Art and part—Judge failing to direct jury that it was essential that knowledge be proved on part of both appellants and that it be proved that there was a common criminal enterprise between them—Whether constitutes miscarriage of justice.
The appellants were tried before a sheriff and jury at Glasgow Sheriff Court. The libel of the indictment charged the appellants jointly with the wilful and reckless supply of solvents to underage children for the purposes of inhalation. In his charge to the jury, the sheriff (Dean) stated, in defining the doctrine of art and part, that what was alleged was that the appellants were so closely associated in a known criminal enterprise that each became responsible for the actions of the other; and that, in other words "each knew, or may have known what the other was or might have been doing" and so was guilty by association.
Held, (1) that, although the words "known criminal enterprise" appeared in the sheriff's directions to the jury, that was an insufficient direction as to what had to be established in order to indicate knowledge and that there was a common criminal purpose; (2) that, it was right to approach the directions as to art and part on the weaker of the two alternatives used by the sheriff; (3) that, by doing that, the matter was reduced to a mere speculation and there could be no proper basis for a conviction; and (4) that, accordingly, there had been a miscarriage of justice which had affected both appellants; and appealsallowed and convictions quashed.
Mohammed Khalid and Mohammed Ashrif were charged in the sheriffdom of Glasgow and Strathkelvin at Glasgow at the instance of the Rt. Hon. the Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, Q.C., Her Majesty's Advocate, on an indictment which set forth that:—"You did on various occasions between 20th August 1986 and 13th August 1987, both dates inclusive, at the shop premises occupied by you Mohammed Khalid, at 51 Westmuir Street, Glasgow, culpably, wilfully and recklessly supply to Charles Crawford, James Lawrie, Patrick Thompson, George Sharp McGeoch, Robert Simpson, Thomas Christopher McGibbon, John Henderson, aged 15 years Joseph Thompson, aged 15 years...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Miller v HM Advocate
...SLT 469; 2017 SCCR 166; 2017 SCL 376 Green v HM Advocate [2019] HCJAC 76; 2020 JC 90; 2020 SCCR 54; 2019 GWD 39-631 Khalid v HM Advocate 1990 JC 37 McGartland v HM Advocate [2015] HCJAC 23; 2015 SCCR 192; 2015 SCL 471; 2015 GWD 11-184 Textbooks etc referred to: Judicial Institute for Scotla......
-
Alan Hughes V. Her Majesty's Advocate
...common purpose cannot be established by evidence that the accused "may have known what the other ... might have been doing" - Khalid v HMA 1990 JC 37. In the present case, the trial judge was not wrong to look for adminicles of evidence which might support the appellant's involvement in suc......