Reynolds v HM ADVOCATE
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 28 April 1995 |
| Docket Number | No 24 |
| Date | 28 April 1995 |
| Court | High Court of Justiciary |
JC
LJ-G Hope, Lords Mayfield, Sutherland
Evidence — Sufficiency — Corroboration — Pannel charged with two assaults and robberies — Both incidents displaying similarities and dissimilarities in mode of execution — Whether each incident sufficient to corroborate other incident — Whether sufficient evidence to convict
The pannel was charged with, inter alia, two assaults and robberies. The complainer in the first charge was an ice cream vendor. The incident occurred while he was selling goods from the ice cream van when someone presented a double barrelled shotgun at him. The complainer was forced to drive round various streets and in the course of the journey the pannel, whom he identified, smoked a cigarette from a packet of Kensitas Club but required to be given a light. Near the end of the journey the pannel took money and cigarettes from the van and asked to be let off at a particular location. In the second incident, the appellant was said to have entered a shop and to have pulled a single barrelled shotgun from under his coat. In the course of the incident the pannel asked for a cigarette for which he required a light and later asked for club size cigarettes from stock together with some money, which were handed over to him. The pannel then abducted a nearby motorist and forced him to drive at gunpoint to a street which was near to the place where the previous culprit had got off in the earlier incident. The Crown's position was that each incident was sufficiently similar so as to fall within the doctrine in Moorov v HM AdvocateSC1930 JC 68 and provide mutual corroboration for each other even though each incident was only spoken to by the one witness. On being convicted, the pannel appealed to the High Court of Justiciary.
Held (1) that cases of this kind, while they had to be approached with care, raised questions of fact and degree and there was a process of evaluation to be conducted because there were dissimilarities as well as similarities; but (2) that it could not be said that there was no connection between the two offences, so the case fell within the province of the jury rather than the judge and that the trial judge had properly left the matter to the jury to decide; and appeal refused.
Christopher Reynolds was charged on an indictment at the instance of the Rt Hon the Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, QC, Her Majesty's Advocate, the libel of which set forth, inter alia, that:'(1) [O]n 22 January 1994 at Kingsway Court, Glasgow, you did assault Stephen Haggerty, care of Partick Police Office, Glasgow, present a shotgun at him, repeatedly menace him therewith, abduct him, compel him to drive you in a motor vehicle in various streets in Glasgow to Dornal Avenue, Glasgow, detain him against his will, present a knife at him and rob him of a quantity of cigarettes and £120 of money;
'(2) On 22 January 1994 at Kingsway Court, Danes Drive, Dornal Avenue and other streets in Glasgow, you did at the time of your committing the offences specified in charge (1) hereof, being offences specified in Schedule 2 to the aftermentioned Act, namely assault, abduction and robbery, have in your possession a firearm, namely a double-barrelled shotgun: contrary to the Firearms Act 1968, sec 17(2) and (5);
'(3) On 24 May 1994 in Alderman Road, Glasgow, you did assault Catherine McGeogh and Peter Shannon, both care of Partick Police Office, Glasgow, present a shotgun at them, demand money, threaten to shoot said Peter Shannon, compel them to open the lockfast shop premises at 269 Alderman Road, Glasgow, and rob them of a quantity of cigarettes, a cigarette lighter and £810 of money;
“(4) On 24 May 1994 in Alderman Road, Glasgow, you did assault Charles Findlay, care of Partick Police Office, Glasgow, present a shotgun at him, abduct him, compel him to drive you in a motor vehicle in Alderman Road, Kelso Street, Halley Street, Hawick Street and Dornal Avenue, all Glasgow, threaten him with violence and detain him against his will.”
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Notes Of Appeal Against Conviction And Sentence By William Hugh Lauchlan And Charles Bernard O'neill Against Her Majesty's Advocate
...192 Ogg v HM AdvocateSC 1938 JC 152; 1938 SLT 513 Reid v HM AdvocateSC 1999 JC 320; 1999 SLT 1257; 1999 SCCR 769 Reynolds v HM AdvocateSC 1995 JC 142; 1996 SLT 49; 1995 SCCR 504 Rushiti v AustriaHRC (2001) 33 EHRR 56 Sekanina v AustriaHRC (1994) 17 EHRR 221 Sinder v HM AdvocateUNK 2003 SCCR......
-
M.r. V. Her Majesty's Advocate
...2011 SCCR 97; 2011 SCL 233; 2011 GWD 2-88 Reid v HM AdvocateSCUNK 1999 JC 320; 1999 SLT 1257; 1999 SCCR 769 Reynolds v HM AdvocateSCUNK 1995 JC 142; 1996 SLT 49; 1995 SCCR 504 Russell v HM AdvocateUNK 1992 SCCR 257 Smith v HM Advocate 1995 SLT 583 Textbooks etc. referred to: Alison, AJ, Pri......
-
Duthie v HM Advocate
...746; 2016 SCCR 319; 2016 SCL 585 Reilly v HM Advocate [2017] HCJAC 5; 2017 SCCR 142; 2017 SCL 347; 2017 GWD 6-84 Reynolds v HM Advocate 1995 JC 142; 1996 SLT 49; 1995 SCCR 504 Stewart v HM Advocate [2007] HCJAC 32; 2007 JC 198; 2007 SCCR 303 TN v HM Advocate [2018] HCJAC 20; 2018 SCCR 109; ......
-
C W Appellant Against HM Advocate Respondent
...similarities exist will often be a question of fact and degree requiring, in a solemn case, assessment by the jury (Reynolds v HM Advocate [1995 JC 142], Lord Justice-General (Hope), delivering the opinion of the court, p 508) under proper direction of the trial judge.” [31] The tenor of al......
-
The Moorov doctrine and coercive control: Proving a ‘course of behaviour’ under s. 1 of the Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Act 2018
...RB, above n. 28 at [29].39. In Webster vHM Advocate [2013] HCJAC 161, the court referred to the older case of Reynolds vHM Advocate 1995 JC 142 toemphasise that, when there are similarities and dissimilarities in the evidence, it is for the trier of fact to determine whether ornot there is ......