McAuley v H. M. Advocate
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 13 November 1945 |
| Docket Number | No. 3. |
| Date | 13 November 1945 |
| Court | High Court of Justiciary |
HIGH COURT.
Lord Justice-Clerk. Lord Mackay. Ld. Stevenson.
Procedure—Trial—Separate trials—Panel charged on indictment with concerting fraudulent scheme with two accomplices—Accomplices already tried summarily for concerting same scheme with panel—One accomplice acquitted—Conviction of panel—Validity.
A panel charged upon indictment in the Sheriff Court was convicted of concocting, in concert with two named accomplices, a fraudulent scheme which involved the doping of greyhounds. These two accomplices had already been tried summarily upon a charge of forming and carrying out, in concert with the panel, the identical scheme now charged, and one had been acquitted.
In an appeal under the Criminal Appeal (Scotland) Act, 1926,—
Held that the indictment as framed was unjustifiable, in respect that one of the alleged accomplices had already been acquitted on a charge of forming and carrying out the scheme in concert with the panel; and conviction and sentence quashed.
Observations on the practice of instituting separate proceedings against persons alleged to be involved in the same crime.
His Majesty's Advocate v. Clark, 1935 J. C. 51,commented on.
John M'Auley was indicted in the Sheriff Court of Lanarkshire at Glasgow at the instance of His Majesty's Advocate upon a charge which set forth "that having, while acting in concert with James Preston … and Archibald Ralston …, formed a fraudulent scheme to secure interference with the running of certain greyhounds belonging to the Shawfield Greyhound Racing Company, Limited, kept by them for the purpose of racing at meetings held under the auspices of said company, at their racing grounds, Shawfield Park, Rutherglen, by administering or causing to be administered to them prior to a race in which such greyhounds were listed to race on 3rd February 1945 drugs which would adversely affect their running and so manipulate the probable result of said race that you and they might be enabled to place bets on greyhounds not so drugged with a more likely chance of winning, you did, in pursuance of said scheme, at your house at 34 Stonefield Road, Blantyre, Lanarkshire, and at the kennels of the said company at Calderglen Estate, Blantyre, aforesaid, and at the said racing grounds at Rutherglen or elsewhere in Glasgow or Lanarkshire, between 20th January and 4th February 1945, induce Alexander Brownlie … and Robert Fraser Hughes … both employed by said company as kennel men...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Howitt v HM Advocate
...been guilty of a fundamental error or oppressive conduct in proceeding as they had (p 290F–G); and appeals refused. McAuley v HM AdvocateSC 1946 JC 8 overruled;Young v HM AdvocateSC1932 JC 63distinguished. Observed that this rule did not apply where the sociuswas acquitted of an offence whi......
-
HM Advocate v O'Neill
...appeal allowed and case remitted to the sheriff to proceed as accords. H.M. Advocate v. ClarkSC 1935 J.C. 51 andMcAuley v. H.M. AdvocateSC1946 J.C. 8distinguished. Observed (per Lord McCluskey) that in a case, such as this, where the sheriff had dismissed the indictment as incompetent after......
-
Application Under The Double Jeopardy (scotland) Act 2011 By Her Majesty's Advocate Against (first) Ronnie Coulter; (second) Andrew Coulter; And (third) David Montgomery
...situation and decided to indict the second and third respondents for the murder. The view was taken that, standing McAuley v HM Advocate 1946 JC 8, the Crown were barred from proffering a charge which ran contrary to a prior jury verdict. Accordingly, the form of the indictment was constrai......
-
Alan John Howitt And Anthony Duffy V. Her Majesty's Advocate
...court on the same day. Both cases raised the same question, as to the soundness of the decision of the court in McAuley v. H.M. Advocate 1946 J.C. 8. Other issues which were not common to the two appeals were also raised; but it is convenient first to deal with the common issue. Each appell......
-
In the Scottish Courts
...with acommonfraudulent purpose should be tried together unless there wassome very strongandcogent reason to the contrary. (SeeMcAulay. 1946 J.C. 8.)Italso fell to be notedthatwhereany of the persons who wereartandpartin the crime were notavailablethepractice was to namethemintheindictment."......