Wade v Robertson
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 24 June 1948 |
| Docket Number | No. 15. |
| Date | 24 June 1948 |
| Court | High Court of Justiciary |
HIGH COURT.
Lord Justice-Clerk. Ld. Jamieson. Ld. Stevenson.
Evidence—Competency—Statement by accused to police—Statement by accused while under arrest—Whether a voluntary statement—Whether evidence of statement necessary for conviction.
A watchman, whose duty it was to guard a ship's cargo, was convicted on a charge of stealing five bottles, each containing whisky, from the ship's hold. After being seen leaving the ship in suspicious circumstances, he was cautioned and charged with the theft of the bottles. He was then taken into custody to a police station. A constable subsequently called at the accused's lodgings and there took possession of a bottle containing whisky. On his return to the police station, the constable showed the accused this bottle and informed him that it had been found in his lodgings. The constable then informed the accused that he was going to ask him questions, which he need not answer, and that his answers might be used in evidence against him. Without any questions being asked the accused made an incriminating statement as to the commission of the theft.
Held that the statement made by the accused was not a voluntary statement and was not admissible as evidence against him; but that the other evidence led was sufficient to warrant conviction; and convictionsustained.
Stark and Smith v. H. M. Advocate, 1938 J. C. 170, andBrown v. Macpherson, 1918 J. C. 3, followed.
Henry Wade was charged in the Southern Police Court of Glasgow on a complaint at the instance of James Robertson, Burgh Procurator-Fiscal, which set forth that he "did on 7th November 1947, from the hold of the motor vessel “Clyde Coast” at Berth 31, Springfield Quay, Glasgow, steal five bottles each containing whisky."
On 6th December 1947 he was convicted by the judge of police, who, on his request, stated a case for appeal to the High Court of Justiciary.
The stated case set forth that the following facts were proved or admitted:—"(1) On 7th November 1947 the motor vessel “Clyde Coast” was berthed at berth 31, Springfield Quay, Glasgow. The appellant was a watchman employed by the stevedores, his duty being to guard the cargo, part of which consisted of cases of whisky, against theft. (2) About 1.30 p.m. the ship was almost ready to sail. (3) The dock labourers had just left the hold to go to the quay, and the appellant came from the hold making his way to the quay. The master of the ship was on the bridge above the deck, and from there he saw that the appellant's pockets were bulging, and that at the top of the hold ladder he opened his coat and it hung loosely in front of him. Being suspicious, the master shouted to a constable on the quay to search the appellant. On being searched as soon as he stepped ashore the appellant was found to have four medicine bottles containing whisky in his pockets. (4) He was then cautioned by the constable and charged with the theft of the bottles, and replied “I was going to hand them over to Mr Canning.” It was the duty of the appellant to report the theft of goods to one of the ship's officers or to Mr Canning or his assistant. (5) Mr Canning was the stevedore's agent. He had been standing near the constable and moved to the ship immediately after the appellant was searched. The appellant did not have a chance to speak to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thomas Porter V. Her Majesty's Advocate
...It was not contended on behalf of the appellant that the other evidence had not been sufficient to warrant conviction (Wade v. Robertson 1948 J.C. 117), but the telephone calls complained of had been so closely interwoven with other events that it would not be appropriate to proceed on the ......
-
George Brodie V. Her Majesty's Advocate
...v Waugh 1937 JC 5 (evidence led of a crime not charged); Brown v McPherson 1918 JC 3; Waddell v Kinnaird 1922 JC 40; Wade v Robertson 1948 JC 117 (incriminating statements wrongly admitted)). [39] The right of appeal in solemn procedure conferred by the Criminal Appeal (Scotland) Act 1926 w......
-
Indulis Lukstins V. Her Majesty's Advocate
...and the privilege against self-incrimination. After charge, the police were functi so far as questioning was concerned (Wade v Robertson 1948 JC 117, Lord Justice-Clerk (Thomson) at 120) and the same principle should apply to the recovery of samples. [10] Accordingly, the evidence of the ap......
-
HM Advocate v Welsh or Cowie
...1989 SCCR 177 McGovern v HM AdvocateSC 1950 JC 33; 1950 SLT 133 Namyslak v HM AdvocateUNK 1995 SLT 528; 1994 SCCR 140 Wade v RobertsonSC 1948 JC 117; 1948 SLT 491 Textbooks etc. referred to: Renton, RW, and Brown, HH, Criminal Procedure according to the Law of Scotland (6th Gordon ed, W Gre......