Robertson v Maxwell
Jurisdiction | Scotland |
Judgment Date | 18 October 1950 |
Date | 18 October 1950 |
Docket Number | No. 3. |
Court | High Court of Justiciary |
HIGH COURT.
Lord Justice-General. Lord Carmont. Lord Keith.
Evidence—Competency—Silence of accused when charged.
Two of three accused, charged with committing a breach of the peace and with malicious mischief, pleaded guilty. In convicting the third accused, who had admittedly been in the company of the other two but who was not proved to have taken any active part in the offences, the magistrates, as appeared from a case stated on appeal, relied on the facts that he had not dissociated himself from his companions and gone home alone and had not, when charged, told the police who was responsible nor given them any help in their investigations.
Held that, on the facts as stated, the magistrates were not entitled to convict, more especially as no adverse inference could competently be drawn from the accused's silence when charged.
Per the Lord Justice-General :—"It has been stated in this Court more than once that no legitimate inference in favour of a prosecutor can be drawn from the fact that a person, when charged with crime, either says nothing or says that he has nothing to say. He is entitled to reserve his defence, and is usually wise if he does so."
David Robertson and two other men (Francis Alexander Montador and John Craig), all resident in St Monance, were charged in the Police Court at Pittenweem on a complaint at the instance of Charles Henderson Maxwell, Burgh Prosecutor, which set forth "that, (1) about 1a.m. on Sunday, 11th June 1950, you did, in High Street, Pittenweem, at a part thereof near the West End, conduct yourselves in a disorderly manner and commit a breach of the peace, and (2) between 1a.m. and 1.15 a.m. you did on the same date, at the West Braes, Pittenweem, maliciously remove from their places seven summer seats, the property of Pittenweem Town Council, whereby two seats were damaged."
Montador and Craig pleaded guilty, and Robertson pleaded not guilty; but on 6th July 1950, after evidence had been led, Robertson was found guilty, and, at his request, the magistrates stated a case for appeal to the High Court of Justiciary.
The stated case set forth that the following facts were admitted or proved :—"I. In regard to first charge—(1) That on the date and at the place first libelled in the complaint a disturbance by knocking on doors, singing and beating of an oil drum had taken place. (2) The persons responsible for this disturbance were not known to and were not seen or identified...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Wightman and Another v H. M. Advocate
...a criminative circumstance for the purpose of applying the doctrine of recent possession, and convictionsquashed. Robertson v. Maxwell, 1951 J. C. 11, applied. Cryans v. Nixon, 1955 J. C. 1, distinguished. George Wightman and Patrick Collins were charged in the Sheriff Court at Airdrie on a......
-
Duncan Maclean V. Her Majesty's Advocate
... ... In Scotland no adverse inference can be drawn from the fact that an accused person was silent when he was questioned by the police ( Robertson v Maxwell ). Further, as was pointed out by the Advocate-depute, the absence of a caution is likely to imperil the admissibility of anything said ... ...
-
Note Of Appeal Against Conviction And Sentence By Lieuwe Hoekstra And Jan Van Rijs And Ronny Van Rijs And Hendrik Van Rijs V. Her Majesty's Advocate
...apply when that has taken place, and it is now well settled, as was said by the Lord Justice-General in Robertson v. Maxwell, 1951 J.C. 11 (at p. 14): 'It has been stated in this Court more than once that no legitimate inference in favour of a prosecutor can be drawn from the fact that a pe......
-
Gary Alexander Paton V. Procurator Fiscal, Alloa
...adverse inference can be drawn from the fact that an accused person was silent when he was questioned by the police (Robertson v. Maxwell 1951 J.C. 11). Further, as was pointed out by the Advocate depute, the absence of a caution is likely to imperil the admissibility of anything said in re......