Mills v H. M. Advocate
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 05 July 1935 |
| Date | 05 July 1935 |
| Docket Number | No. 15. |
| Court | High Court of Justiciary |
HIGH COURT.
Lord Justice-Clerk. Ld. Anderson. Lord Murray.
Evidence—Competency—Statements of panel—Voluntary statement to police by person detained on suspicion of murder—Adequacy of warning.
A man was arrested on suspicion of having murdered his stepmother. Before arrest, he stated to the police that he had not seen the deceased woman for a considerable time. After arrest, he was placed on an identification parade—having been first cautioned, primarily in connexion with the parade but in general terms—and was identified as having been, on the night of the alleged murder, in the neighbourhood of the house where the crime was committed. Immediately after the parade, and about half an hour after the caution preceding it, he made a voluntary verbal statement to a police officer, who did not caution him but with whom he had been in conversation at intervals since his arrest.Held that the verbal statement by the accused was admissible in evidence, in respect (a) that it was voluntary, and (b) that the caution given to him was, in the circumstances of the case, adequate.
Observed that the test of admissibility of statements made by accused persons is whether the admission of the statement would, in the circumstances of the case, be fair to the accused.
H. M. Advocate v. Aitken, 1926 J. C. 83, referred to.
Review—Judge's charge—Inadequate direction to jury—Charge of murder—Verbal statement by accused to police officer before charge—Verbal statement as deponed to by officer implying admission of use of violence—No corroboration of officer's evidence—Accused's evidence contradicting officer's evidence—Written statement by accused after charge—Written statement denying violence—Unexplained reference in judge's charge to "confession"—No warning in judge's charge as to conflict of evidence between officer and accused.
A man, arrested on suspicion of having murdered his stepmother, had, before arrest, stated to the police that he had not seen the deceased woman for a considerable time. After arrest he made two voluntary statements to the police, viz., (1) a verbal statement, made after he had been identified as having been, on the night of the alleged murder, in the neighbourhood of the house where the crime had been committed, this statement having been made to a police officer who did not commit it to writing; (2) a formal written statement, made subsequently, after he was charged with murder, in which he denied having used any violence towards the deceased woman.
At the trial the verbal statement was deponed to (a) by the police officer, who was uncorroborated, and who said that the statement involved an admission that the accused had used violence towards the deceased; and (b) by the accused, who gave a version of the statement which involved no such admission. The presiding judge, in his charge to the jury, did not distinguish between the accused's verbal and written statements but referred to a "confession" made by the accused "after he knew he had been identified," and he did not direct the jury with regard to the sufficiency of the evidence regarding the verbal statement, or as to the discrepancy between the evidence of the police officer and that of the accused. The jury, by a majority, found the accused guilty of murder.
In an appeal under the Criminal Appeal (Scotland) Act, 1926,held that the use of the word "confession" by the presiding judge in his charge, and his failure (a) to distinguish between the accused's verbal and written statements, and (b) to direct the jury's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ronald Barbour Smart V. Her Majesty's Advocate
...to a number of cases including Docherty v H.M. Advocate 1945 J.C. 89, Tobin v H.M. Advocate 1934 J.C. 60, and Mills v H.M. Advocate 1935 J.C. 77. The appellant's position was that none of the directions given by the sheriff amounted to a sufficient direction on the issue of mens rea. [16] I......
-
Green v HM Advocate
...Cases referred to: Advocate (HM) v Boyle [2009] HCJAC 89; 2010 JC 66; 2010 SLT 29; 2010 SCCR 103; 2010 SCL 198 Advocate (HM) v Mills 1935 JC 77; 1935 SLT 532 Barrie v HM Advocate 2002 SLT 1053 Bradford v McLeod 1986 SLT 244; 1985 SCCR 379; [1986] Crim LR 690 Brown v HM Advocate 1993 SCCR 38......
-
Notes Of Appeal Against Conviction And Sentence By (first) Paul Green, (second) Lee Noonan And (third) Robbie Darren Brown
...any accused individually. The failures of the judge were sufficiently material as to justify quashing the conviction (Mills v HM Advocate 1935 JC 77 at 82-83). 19 Crown [44] In relation to the interruptions, the test was whether the circumstances were such as would create in the mind of a r......
-
Chalmers v H. M. Advocate
...88, was also referred to. 3 Costello v. Macpherson, 1922 J. C. 9, Lord Justice-Clerk Scott Dickson at p. 12; Mills v. H. M. AdvocateSC, 1935 J. C. 77, Lord Justice-Clerk Aitchison at p. 81. 4 Lawrie v. MuirSC, 1950 J. C. 19. 5 Gracie v. Stuart, (1884) 5 Coup. 379, 11 R. (J.) 22. 6 Hume on C......