Quarterly Summary
| DOI | 10.1177/002201835702100213 |
| Date | 01 April 1957 |
| Published date | 01 April 1957 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
Quarterly Summary
(Extended reports
of
some
of
the
cases
here summarised
will be given in our next issue.-Editor)
'KNOWINGLY'
POSSESSING EXPLOSIVE SUBSTANCE
R.
v. Hallam
The
appellant had been convicted
under
the
Explosive
Substances Act, 1883, s. 4 (I), on a charge of "knowingly
having in his possession or
under
his control certain explosive
substances", namely, pieces of gelignite
and
detonators,
under
such circumstances as to give rise to a reasonable suspicion
that
they were not in his possession or
under
his control for
a lawful object. Before dismissing
the
appeal against con-
viction the Court of Criminal Appeal discussed
the
question
whether "knowingly" meant
that
he
must
not
only know
that
he had some substance in his possession,
but
also
that
it was
an explosive substance.
The
Court thought
that
the
words of
the
section meant
that
he must know
that
it was an explosive
substance. Such knowledge was a necessary ingredient of the
offence.
The
jury
must be satisfied
that
the defendant had a
substance in his possession, and
that
he had it in his possession
in such circumstances giving rise to a reasonable suspicion
that
it was not for a lawful object.
If
they were so satisfied
they could infer
that
he knew
that
it was an explosive substance.
(25th February, 1957.)
BORSTAL
TRAINING
FOR HOMOSEXUALS
R.
v. Gardner
The
Court of Criminal Appeal dismissed an appeal
against sentence by an appellant aged 18 who had been
sentenced by quarter sessions to Borstal training for two
offences of gross indecency.
The
Court obtained information
from
the
Prison Commissioners, which corroborated informa-
tion
that
they already had,
that
there was no real objection to
189
To continue reading
Request your trial