A Signal Set of Circumstances
| Date | 01 October 1970 |
| Published date | 01 October 1970 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0032258X7004301010 |
| Author | William Muncie |
| Subject Matter | Article |
DET.
CHIEF
SUPT.
WILLIAM
MUNCIE,
Q.P.M.
Lanarkshire Constabulary
A
SIGNAL
SET
OF
~IR~UMSTAN~ES
In Airdrie, recently, I watched a bulldozer at work demolishing a
building, and as each chunk of masonry fell in a cloud of sand
and lime dust, a few citizens, of doubtful character, let go a con-
trolled chorus of derisive cheers and laughter. The building being
torn down was Airdrie Sheriff Court House. I reflected how wonder-
ful it would be if we had reached the stage, when, like the Pilgrim
Fathers, we
"had
neither bars to our windows
nor
locks to
our
doors", and everyone was so impeccably honest that there was no
further use for court houses, then all could cheer with gusto, as each
court was demolished.
But the thought of the progress we've made since
A.D.
0001
immediately banished such wistful thinking and a feeling of nostalgia
took its place, because that building had been almost a second
home to me in my first eight years as a detective officer, and I re-
flected on the many strange, unusual and seemingly difficult cases
which had been heard in it; some so unusual as never likely to
occur again. As I looked, I wondered which was the most unusual
and seemingly, on cursory examination, the most difficult in my
experience. Yes! On July 24, 1947, a railway guard stepped from
the dock a free man. He had been charged with forcing open a
lockfast railway van at Gartsherrie Junction, in an attempt to steal
therefrom, and had been represented by the most eminent city lawyer
of the time. The principal witness was a railway signalman who
alleged that the guard left his train, the S.136, while it was held at a
signal, and broke open a van forming
part
of another train, in
that
junction. The guard, giving evidence on his own behalf, denied the
charge, saying that he did not leave his train, and, in any case, it
would have been impossible for him to have committed this crime,
as his train did not, in fact, stop in
that
junction. The driver and
fireman of the train appeared as witnesses for the defence and each
also stated, on oath, that it would have been impossible for the
guard to have committed this crime, as their train did not stop and
carried on non-stop through
that
long junction. As the guard left
the dock, he was met by the driver and fireman-congratulations
and smiles all round! Satisfaction at
our
legal system? Or was it
more a smirk of satisfaction at having defeated
it?
On his way out of
the court at the same time, looking absolutely dejected, was the
railway
signalman-a
young man whom I
knew-and
knew to be as
honest as the day is long. A smirk I reckoned it to be on the faces of
those three! A smirk at having defeated the ends of justice and, on
310 October 1970
To continue reading
Request your trial