BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?

No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!



BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

Scottish High Court of Justiciary Decisons


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish High Court of Justiciary Decisons >> GERALD WILLIAM AMBROSE v. PROCURATOR FISCAL, AYR [1999] ScotHC 18 (26th January, 1999)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotHC/1999/18.html
Cite as: [1999] ScotHC 18

[New search] [Help]


GERALD WILLIAM AMBROSE v. PROCURATOR FISCAL, AYR [1999] ScotHC 18 (26th January, 1999)

VA

 

2139/97

 

Lord Prosser

Lord Marnoch

Lord Weir

HIGH COURT OF JUSTICIARY

 

OPINION OF THE COURT

 

delivered by

 

THE HONOURABLE LORD PROSSER

 

in

 

APPEAL BY STATED CASE

 

by

 

GERALD WILLIAM AMBROSE

 

Appellant

 

against

 

PROCURATOR FISCAL, AYR

Respondent

_____________

26 January 1999

This appeal by stated case is brought by Gerald Ambrose, who stood trial in the Sheriff Court at Ayr on 4 July 1997 and was convicted of simple possession of cannabis resin. He was fined £250.

The sole point taken in the appeal relates to the items which were taken by the police, and the question of whether they are identical with the items which are dealt with in a forensic science report which was before the court and which is accepted to have been evidence as to the matters it contains. From that report it is apparent that what was being examined was an article with attached to it a production label. The label bore a specific number, and referred to the material having been in a motor vehicle which, according to the label, had been driven by someone bearing Mr Ambrose's name in King Street/Whitletts Road in Ayr. There was police evidence that that was indeed where they found the appellant driving a car.

The discrepancy which is founded upon is as to the registration number of the car. The police spoke to it having been a vehicle D102 OYS. The certificate refers to the label and says that the label describes the vehicle as D102 OJS.

In presenting the appeal Mr Shead accepted that when one was considering whether there was a sufficient link between items analysed and items spoken to by the police as having been in the possession of a particular accused the matter was one of circumstances. We were referred to the cases of Allan v Ingram 1995 S.C.C.R. 390 and Dryburgh v Scott 1995 S.C.C.R. 371. The case of Dryburgh deals with the question of whether a court can look at a label which has not been spoken to by the police and in this case that might be in point in relation to the identification number which was not spoken to by the police but which is given in the report as having been on the label. However, we do not find it necessary to refer to Dryburgh or to approach the matter in that way.

In this case the reference by the report to the appellant by name, the reference to King Street and Whitletts Road, and the reference to the vehicle with an only fractionally different number, all tying in with the police evidence, appears to us to be sufficient material for any court to decide that the link was sufficiently established.

In these circumstances the questions in the case are answered in the affirmative and the appeal is refused.

 

 


© 1999 Crown Copyright


BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotHC/1999/18.html