Steele v HM Advocate ; Forbes v HM Advocate
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 26 September 1991 |
| Neutral Citation | 1992 SCCR 30 |
| Date | 26 September 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. 1. |
| Court | High Court of Justiciary |
JC
L. J.-C. Hope, Lords Murray, Morison.
Procedure—Solemn procedure—Trial—Judge's charge to jury—Trial judge failing to mention to jury possible alternative verdicts of conviction of reset to charges of theft—Periods between thefts and recovery of stolen goods varying from one day to four months where Crown relying on evidence of recent possession.
Procedure—Solemn procedure—Trial—Judge's charge to jury—Video tape evidence—Trial judge directing jury that they could not form their own views as to what video tape evidence showed but should be guided by what witnesses said was shown—Whether misdirection.
The accused were tried on indictment with a number of substantial thefts by housebreaking from commercial premises. The principal evidence against them consisted of their possession of the stolen goods which were recovered from a lock-up owned by one accused and from both of their homes. The Crown case depended on the inferences to be drawn from the accuseds' possession of recently stolen property. Substantial variations existed as to the time between the thefts and recovery of the stolen goods, varying from one day to four months. The accused were convicted of theft and appealed to the High Court on the ground that the jury should have been directed that the verdict of conviction of reset was available to them, one accused also appealing on the ground that the trial judge had misdirected the jury that they could not draw their own conclusions from video tape evidence but had to be guided by the evidence given by witnesses.
Held (1) that if a direction in law was necessary, in fairness to the accused, the trial judge ought to give it even although the matter had not been raised by the defence; (2) that since reset was an issue, it had been necessary, in fairness to the accused, for the jury to be told of the alternative verdicts which were open to them; (3) that, except where some particular expertise was required to understand what was being shown in video tape evidence, the jury were free to make up their own minds about what the tape showed; and (4) that, while the sheriff's direction was not an accurate statement of principle, in the circumstances of this case, where so much of what was shown on the tapes was disputed and could not be left to the speculation of the jury, with regard to the video tape evidence his direction might have been appropriate and was not a misdirection; and appeals allowed,convictions of theft quashed and convictions of resetsubstituted.
Dictum of Lord Guthrie in Templeton v. H.M. AdvocateSC1961 J.C. 62 at p. 69 approved.
Kilna v. H.M. AdvocateSC 1960 J.C. 23 distinguished.
Kevin Munro Steele and David Landells Forbes were charged on an indictment at the instance of the Rt. Hon. The Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, Q.C., Her Majesty's Advocate, the libel of which set forth inter alia various charges of theft by housebreaking. After trial at Linlithgow Sheriff Court each accused was found guilty of three of those charges and appealed to the High Court by note of appeal against his convictions.
The cause came before the High Court of Justiciary, comprising the Lord Justice-General (Hope), Lord Murray and Lord Morison, for a hearing on 26th September 1991. The facts of the case and arguments of the parties appear from the opinion of the court.
Eo die, at advising, the opinion of the court was delivered by the Lord Justice-General (Hope).
Opinion Of The Court.—The appellants Kevin Munro Steele and David Landells Forbes went to trial together with Thomas Drummond, whose...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Abdelbaset Al Megrahi V. Her Majesty's Advocate
...NI 74 R v Wilson, unreported [1975] NIJB Sandells HM Advocate 1980 SLT (Notes) 45 Slater HM Advocate 1928 JC 94 Steele HM AdvocateUNK 1992 SCCR 30 Stirling v Associated Newspapers LtdSC 1960 JC 5 Thomas v ThomasELR [1947] AC 484 Valentine v McPhailUNK 1986 SCCR 321 Webb v HM Advocate 1927 J......
-
William Johnston (junior)+charles Woolard V. Her Majesty's Advocate
...prosecutor's address to the jury. The point is illustrated by such authorities as Quinn v HM Advocate 1990 SCCR 254, Steele v HM Advocate 1992 JC 1, Robertson v HM Advocate, Meyl v HM Advocate 2005 SCCR 338 and Touati and Gilfillan v HM Advocate 2008 JC 214. In the recent cases of Ferguson ......
-
Note Of Appeal Against Conviction By Justinas Gubinas And Nerijus Radavicius Against Her Majesty's Advocate
...judge, clerk and video operator. 5 Submissions First appellant [10] Under reference to Bowie v Tudhope 1986 SCCR 205, Steele v HM Advocate 1992 JC 1, Gray v HM Advocate 1999 SCCR 24, Donnelly v HM Advocate 2000 SCCR 861, Robertson v HM Advocate 2007 SLT 459 and HM Advocate v Ronald (No. 2) ......
-
Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi V. Her Majesty's Advocate
...of the record. In doing so, it was apparent that it had followed a course of action which had been condemned in Steele v HM Advocate 1992 SCCR 30, that is to say it made up its own mind as to what evidence revealed where expert evidence was necessary for that purpose. In the same connection......
-
Recent Judicial Decisions
...evidence. He did notknow Clare and Peach before that day.His Lordship considered R. v. Leaney (1987) 38 CCC 3d 263; R. v.Steele (1992) SLT 847; and R. v. Howe (1983) I NZLR 618 and said thatthe phrase from Howe "expert ad hoc" sought to put witnesses like PCFitzpatrick into the traditional ......