Recent Judicial Decisions
| Published date | 01 July 1934 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0032258X3400700302 |
| Date | 01 July 1934 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
Recent Judicial Decisions
R.
v. Hatch
THE case of R. v. Hatch, reported on page
100
of Twenty-
four Criminal Appeal Reports, is one in which the conviction
of a housebreaker was quashed owing to the fact that at his trial
evidence which suggested that he had attempted to break into
two other houses (offences with which he was not charged)
had been improperly admitted.
The
decision may have given rise to misunderstandings
as to the admissibility of evidence to the effect that marks on
doors might have been produced by particular implements,
and the judgment of
Mr.
Justice Avory, reproduced below,
should be carefully read :
,This appellant was convicted at Gloucestershire Sessions
of the offence of being found by night in possession of an im-
plement of housebreaking without lawful excuse, contrary
to section
28,
sub-section 2of the Larceny Act,
1916.
The
statute provides that the proof of lawful excuse shall lie upon
the accused.
The
implement in question was a timber dog,
an implement which may be, and ordinarily is, used for a
lawful purpose. There is no question that the appellant was
found in the early hours of the morning in possession of a
timber dog.
There
is also no doubt that this fact, coupled
with the conduct of the appellant when he was challenged by
a police officer and with the opinion expressed by the police
officer in the witness-box that this was an instrument capable
of being used for housebreaking purposes, afforded ample
evidence on which the accused might be lawfully convicted
of the offence charged.
260
To continue reading
Request your trial