Thompson v H. M. Advocate
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 09 July 1968 |
| Date | 09 July 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 11. |
| Court | High Court of Justiciary |
HIGH COURT.
Lord justice-General. Lord Guthrie. Lord Cameron.
Review—Appeal against conviction on indictment—Power of court to hear additional evidence—Conditions on which new evidence admissible—Alleged confession by another party—Criminal Appeal (Scotland) Act, 1926 (16 and 17 Geo. V, cap. 15) sec, 6 (b).
After the conviction of a youth for murder his sister wrote a letter stating that she had committed the murder. If her evidence at the trial had been true, the panel could not have committed the crime. At the hearing of his application for leave to appeal the panel moved the Court to order his sister to attend and be examined before the Court.
The Court refused the motion on the ground that they were not reasonably satisfied that, if the proposed evidence had been led at the trial, the verdict would have been different, particularly as the jury had rejected the sister's evidence at the trial, and on the further grounds (1) that to grant it would be to order the sister to appear to confess to a crime with which she had not been charged, (2) that she would be entitled to refuse to incriminate herself, and (3) that there had been no special defence that the murder had been committed by her.
Evidence—Competency—Statements of panels—Statement to police during investigation of crime—Voluntary statement by panel when not under suspicion—No caution given.
Evidence—Competency—Statements of panel—Statement to police after caution—No defence solicitor present—Panel under suspicion but not under arrest.
During the investigation of a murder and before suspicion had fallen on anyone, the victim's grandson, who was waiting at a police office, made an exclamation. He was at once cautioned and thereupon voluntarily made a confession, which the police wrote down and he signed. At his trial for the murder evidence of his exclamation and of his confession was admitted. He was convicted, and in an application for leave to appeal it was contended that this evidence was unfairly obtained and ought not to have been admitted.
The Court refused the application for leave to appeal,holding (1) that evidence of the exclamation was admissible although the panel had not been cautioned, since he made it voluntarily when he was not under suspicion, and (2) that, as he was not under arrest when he made the confession, there was no need to obtain the services of a solicitor, and therefore that evidence of it was admissible.
Procedure—Trial—Objections to evidence—Procedure for disposing of objections.
Objection having been taken to the admission of evidence of an alleged confession, the jury were excluded and the presiding judge heard evidence of the circumstances in which the confession had been obtained, and repelled the objection. Evidence of the confession and of the circumstances was then led before the jury.
Observed that this procedure, being that laid down inChalmers v. H. M. Advocate, 1954 J. C. 66, might have to be reconsidered.
Alastair William Thompson was charged on an indictment at the instance of Her Majesty's Advocate, which set forth, inter alia, that "on 27th January 1968 in the house occupied by Margaret Swanson Thompson at 24 Colinton Mains Terrace, Edinburgh, you did assault said Margaret Swanson Thompson and did strike her on the head with a hammer and did stab her on the neck with a knife and you did murder her."
The panel was tried before Lord Wheatley and a jury at Edinburgh on 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th May 1968.
It appeared from the evidence that the murder had taken place between 12.30 and 2.30 p.m., but was not discovered till about 7p.m. The police then interviewed various members of the victim's family, including the panel, her grandson. They did not find him till late at night, and as he had lived with the deceased and could not go back to the house, they kept him at the police office till they could find accommodation for him. The Crown sought to lead evidence that, while the panel was waiting at the police office with a police officer, he suddenly exclaimed, "It was either her or me," and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Henderson v HM Advocate
...be examined before the Court. The Court refused the motion; quoad the brother, on the ground that, followingThompson v. H.M. Advocate, 1968 J. C. 61, it was impossible to say that, if he had admitted his guilt at the trial, the jury would probably have acquitted the appellant; and quoad the......
-
Beattie v HM Advocate
...23 Sinclair v HM AdvocateUNKUNK [2005] UKPC D2; 2005 1 SC (PC) 28; 2005 SLT 553; 2005 SCCR 446; [2005] HRLR 26 Thompson v Advocate (HM)SC 1968 JC 61; 1968 SLT 339 Thompson v CroweSCUNK 2000 JC 173; 1999 SLT 1434; 1999 SCCR 1003 Wardrop v HM AdvocateUNK [2005] HCJAC 19; 2005 SCCR 226 The app......
-
Peter Cadder Appellant
...basis for the police detaining such a person whom they had not arrested. Since someone in that position had no right to legal advice (Thompson v HM Advocate 1968 JC 61, 65, per Lord Justice General Clyde), in practice, most people acquiesced in the questioning. See, for instance, the remar......
-
Peter Cadder Appellant
...basis for the police detaining such a person whom they had not arrested. Since someone in that position had no right to legal advice (Thompson v HM Advocate 1968 JC 61, 65, per Lord Justice General Clyde), in practice, most people acquiesced in the questioning. See, for instance, the remar......
-
The Right to Legal Assistance During Detention
...Second Report (Cmnd 6218: 1975) para 3.10. However, as non-arrested persons had no right to legal advice,3030Thompson v HM Advocate 1968 JC 61 at 65. most were unaware of this and submitted to questioning voluntarily.3131Cadder at para 83 per Lord Rodger. Admissions made in these circumstan......
-
Chalmers to Cadder: Full Circle on Police Interrogation?
...“at best, an ambiguous decision”. was certainly contrary to its spirit. Indeed, the following year, in Thompson v HMA,4040Thompson v HMA 1968 JC 61 Lord Wheatley (as trial judge) again emphasised the need not to hamper the police and more openly challenged the ethos of Chalmers by suggestin......