R v John McGregor

Revised

This Appellant was convicted of receiving at the Liverpool Crown Court last October and sentenced to three years' imprisonment. The application certainly disclosed a point of law and accordingly the single Judge referred the matter to this Court and gave leave to appeal in so far as it was necessary. There is also an application for leave to appeal against sentence.

Having regard to the points that arise it is unnecessary to go into the facts in any great detail. A police sergeant stopped a motor car which was being driven by this Appellant with his wife as a passenger in the afternoon of 1st March of last year. The officer said that he had reason to believe they were in possession of stolen Jewellery and asked them to leave the car. According to him, the Appellant replied "There's some bastards in Liverpool". In the Appellant's wife's shopping bag which had been in the car was found a parcel wrapped in newspaper which in turn contained a plastic bag in which was silver, white gold, platinum, and metal contacts which had been stolen over a period of some three years before from the premises of the Automatic Telephone Company at Edge Lane, Liverpool.

The husband and wife were taken to the police station and according to the police when the Appellant was shown the parcel he said "I knew it was there but that is all I'm saying. I want to go to Liverpool before I say any more". Again, when he was told that the articles had been examined and of their estimated value he said "I know you won't tell me, but what I want to know is how you knew it was there".

The background which gave rise to the point in this case is that there had been a previous trial of the Appellant and of his wife. His wife had been acquitted and the Jury disagreed in respect of the charge against the Appellant of receiving. In the course of the new trial, the Prosecution intimated to the defence that they proposed to call a police officer who had been present at the first trial who would say that the Appellant had admitted at that first trial that he had possession of these goods, which is clearly one of the elements in receiving, and indeed had said that he had put them in his wife's shopping bag. After considerable argument, the Judge admitted that evidence, there was an adjournment, the Defence was supplied with a transcript, and Mr. Dovener for the Defence proceeded to cross-examine the police officer, quite properly, to bring out further matter that the Appellant had said at the earlier trial, and in particular explanations as to how he had come into possession of the goods and how he claimed when he came into possession of them he did not know that they were stolen.

The first ground of appeal here is that the learned Judge was wrong in allowing that evidence to be given, firstly on the ground that it was as has been said inadmissible and secondly on quite a general ground that even if admissible it was in the circumstances of this case unfair.

With regard to the first point, this Court can conceive of no ground upon which it could be said that this evidence was inadmissible. It was in the nature of an admission or a confession made at the earlier trial on oath, and it is clearly evidence of possession, one of the relevant matters which the Prosecution have to prove. The most that can be said about it is that it is a novel point; neither Counsel nor any...