McLaughlan v Boyd
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 02 November 1933 |
| Docket Number | No. 5. |
| Date | 02 November 1933 |
| Court | High Court of Justiciary |
HIGH COURT.
Lord Justice-General. Lord Blackburn. Lord Morison.
Crime—Indecent practices—Whether an offence at common law to use lewd, indecent, and libidinous practices towards an adult.
Crime—Indecent practices—Complaint of lewd, indecent, and libidinous practices—Modus—Placing hand on private parts.
An accused was convicted on two charges of using lewd, indecent, and libidinous practices, the evidence in each case being that he had seized another person's hand and placed it on his own private parts. There was no evidence of the age of either of these persons. The accused was, at the same time, convicted on certain charges of assault, the evidence in each case being that he had placed his hand on another person's private parts, or evidence to a similar effect. It was not expressly found that the other persons had not consented to the act.
Held, on appeal, that it was an offence at common law to use lewd, indecent, and libidinous practices, even though the person in relation to whom they were used had attained the age of puberty; that the actings complained of in the first two charges constituted the crime of lewd, indecent, and libidinous practices according to the law of Scotland; and that, in the circumstances, the convictions on both types of charge fell to be sustained.
Opinions that all shamelessly indecent conduct is criminal by the common law of Scotland.
Thomas M'Laughlan, spirit merchant, 13 Charlotte Street, Ayr, was charged in the Police Court at Ayr, at the instance of Leonard Cecil Boyd, Burgh Prosecutor, Ayr, on a complaint which set forth, inter alia, that "(1) on a day between 1st December 1931 and 31st March 1932, both days inclusive, in your licensed premises at 46 High Street, in the Burgh of Ayr, you did use lewd, indecent, and libidinous practices towards [J. C.] labourer, … by seizing his hand and placing it on your private parts; … (4) on 24th August 1932, in your said licensed premises, you did assault [G. M.] apprentice plasterer, by placing your hand upon his private parts." The complaint also libelled six other offences alleged to have been committed between 1st December 1931 and 31st December 1932. Of these charges, one libelled an offence in terms similar to charge (1), and the remaining five charged offences in terms similar to charge (4).
At the pleading diet the accused pleaded not guilty, and no preliminary objection was stated on his behalf to the relevancy of the complaint.
At the diet of trial a general objection to the relevancy of the complaint was stated on his behalf, but this objection was repelled by the magistrate for lack of specification. The accused thereupon again pleaded not guilty.
After evidence had been led, the magistrate found the accused guilty of the two charges of lewd, indecent, and libidinous practices and also found him guilty of three of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Khaliq v HM Advocate
...Hume 1.327, approved; Dicta of Lord Cockburn in Bernard Greenhuff (1838) 2 Swin. 236 at 274 and of L.J.-G. Clyde inM'Laughlan v. BoydSC1934 J.C. 19 at 22applied. (2) That the wilful administration of a dangerous substance was clearly criminal regardless of consent and the distinction betwee......
-
Webster v Dominick
...not a relevant charge in the law of Scotland (Watt v Annanoverruled) (para 46); and case remitted to the sheriff court. McLaughlan v BoydSC 1934 JC 19 disapproved. Watt v AnnanSC 1978 JC 84 overruled. Allan Dominick was charged on a summary complaint in the sheriffdom of North Strathclyde a......
-
George Clark+james Smith+liam Fagan V. Her Majesty's Advocate+procurator Fiscal, Airdrie
...agreed). The fons et origo is effectively identified by him in the obiter dictum of the Lord Justice General (Clyde) in McLaughlan v Boyd 1934 JC 19; 1933 SLT 629 - see paragraphs 15-18 of the opinion of the Lord Justice Clerk in Webster v Dominick, in which the invocation by the Lord Justi......
-
Procurator Fiscal, Dunoon V. Allan Dominick
...In the two principal authorities on the subject in modern times the court misunderstood the nature of the crime. In McLaughlan v Boyd (1934 JC 19), the court approved an erroneous statement in Macdonald that "all shamelessly indecent conduct is criminal," and on the basis of that statement ......