Quarter Sessions
| Published date | 01 July 1950 |
| Date | 01 July 1950 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/002201835001400302 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
Quarter Sessions
OFFENCE
NOT DISCLOSED ON
DEPOSITIONS
R. o. Shephard
ANinteresting point was
taken
at
London Sessions in
February
last
when counsel for ] ohn
Henry
Shephard
moved
to
quash
the
indictment on
the
ground
that
the
offence charged
had
not
been disclosed on
the
depositions.
The
charge against Shephard was
that
"at
the
time of his
apprehension for
an
offence under section 4 of
the
Vagrancy
Act 1824,
to
wit being a suspected person loitering with
intent
to
commit a felony, he
had
in his possession without
lawful object acertain firearm,
to
wit a pistol, contrary
to
section 23
(2)
of
the
Firearms Act 1937."
Counselfor
the
prisonerpointed
out
that
the
depositions
only showed
that
Shephard
had
been arrested
and
that
at
that
time he
had had
in his possession a firearm. Counsel
argued
that
it
was necessary for
the
depositions also
to
show a prima facie case
that
Shephard was a suspected
person loitering with
intent
to
commit a felony. Counsel
referred
to
R. v. Fairbairn (2
K.B.
1949, 690) where a
prisoner was charged with
the
same offence
and
evidence
of a previous conviction was admitted
to
show
that
he was
a"suspected person" within
the
meaning of
the
section
at
the
time of his arrest. This evidence, said counsel,
could only have been admitted for
the
purpose of proving
the
prisoner
to
be a suspected person loitering with
intent
to
commit a felony.
He
read
the
following passage of
Goddard L.C.].
:-
" Since
that
section was passed,
the
question of
what
it
is necessary
to
prove before a person can be convicted of
being asuspected person has been
the
subject of a great
many
cases,
the
leading
authority
being Ledwith v. Roberts.
That
was a case in which police officers observed two men,
who
had
no previous convictions
and
who
had
not
up
to
that
time been suspected of
any
particular crime, acting in
262
To continue reading
Request your trial