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!
 |
[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 >> JAMES ANDREW AITCHISON v. PROCURATOR FISCAL, LINLITHGOW [1999] ScotHC 56 (10th March, 1999) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotHC/1999/56.html Cite as: [1999] ScotHC 56 |
||
[New search] [Help]
|
Lord Prosser Lord Kirkwood Lord Milligan
|
223/98
HIGH COURT OF JUSTICIARY
OPINION OF THE COURT
delivered by
THE HONOURABLE LORD PROSSER
in
STATED CASE
by
JAMES ANDREW AITCHISON
Appellant
against
PROCURATOR FISCAL, LINLITHGOW Respondent _____________ |
Brodie, QC
Scott
10 March 1999
The appellant James Aitchison stood trial in the Sheriff Court at Linlithgow on a charge under section 49(1) of the Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 1995, having a knife and bayonet in a public place. He was convicted. He had the knife and bayonet with him in a pocket of a car. The appellant himself admitted in evidence that they were there. There was evidence from two police officers of seeing them there. There is an unusual aspect of the case in that there are irreconcilable differences between the two police officers as to how the objects came to be discovered, each of them apparently giving evidence that it was that particular officer who saw them first. However the sheriff, while by acknowledging that the differences are irreconcilable, explains that he came to accept the evidence of Constable Powley as to how he came to see the items and he says that the other officer's recollection of herself finding the items was in his view wholly mistaken. He therefore did not accept her evidence as to the circumstances of the discovery. There is however plainly corroborated evidence from Constable Powley and the appellant himself as to the presence of the objects. The appellant gave an explanation which is rejected as to why he had the objects there. He also gave evidence that he covered the objects with a magazine. That is also rejected. On the whole evidence it appears to us that there is sufficient evidence for the offence to have been committed by having these weapons in the public place and the appeal fails. The questions in the case are as to the sheriff's entitlement to make finding 3, and to convict. We answer both these questions in the affirmative.
LIN
