Attempts to pervert or defeat or hinder the course of justice (crime against state) Flashcards
HMA v Martin 1956
Defeat;The High Court of Justiciary held that escaping from legal custody and aiding and abetting such escape and so attempting to defeat the ends of justice were recognised crimes at common law in Scotland.,one of the accused had been taken from Prison to form part of a working team . He escaped from there and was convicted of attempting to deafeat the ends of justice by absconding from lawful custody.
HMA v Mannion 1961
Hinder,the accused deliberately left his home and went into hiding in order to avoid giving evidence at the trail of third party for aggrevated theft. The court held that this constitute an attempt to pervert the course of justice
McElhinney v Normand 1996
Perversion, An accused person was charged on a summary complaint with attempting to pervert the course of justice by assisting a man, S, to avoid being taken into lawful custody. Police officers, after having been shown a warrant for the arrest of S, went to his house where they saw him leaving quickly via the back court. The officers gave chase along a street and as they were doing so the accused stopped his motor vehicle and allowed S and another man to get into the vehicle, which was then driven off at speed. Objection was taken to evidence of the police officers’ efforts to execute the warrant on the ground that the warrant had not been produced in evidence. The sheriff repelled the objection and convicted the accused, who appealed.
Held, that the course of justice commenced when the police officers were informed of the existence of the warrant and began their pursuit, and was still being pursued when the appellant interrupted it; and the existence or validity of the original warrant was an incidental matter which it was unnecessary for the Crown to establish in order to prove the case against the accused; and appeal refused, Fletcher v Tudhope 1984 S.C.C.R. 267, [1984] 5 WLUK 157 considered.
Carney v HMA 1995
Attempt to pervert. An accused person was charged on indictment with attempting to pervert the course of justice by intimidating Crown witnesses from giving true evidence against his friend. The accused was a defence witness at a trial but entered the prosecution witness room, sat down where everyone could see him and looked at them. He did not say anything but the witnesses recognised him and were frightened. The sheriff directed the jury that it was not sufficient that the accused’s presence induced fear in the witnesses and that the accused had to have acted deliberately for the purpose of intimidating the witnesses. The accused was convicted and appealed on the ground, inter alia, of misdirection in that the sheriff had confused the jury by giving examples of someone’s behaviour being affected by the presence of another.
Held, that the jury could have been left in no doubt that mere presence was not sufficient to make the accused a participant in the crime and that they could not convict unless they were satisfied that he had deliberately behaved in a way designed to intimidate the witnesses and so pervert the course of justice; and appeal refused.
HMA v Harris 2011 JC 125 at 131[8]
accused argued that common law do not recognise such law, per L J-G Hamilton has been long prior the ECHR into Scots law
Murphy v HMA 2012
the accused was convicted of murder, having mounted a serious assault on the victim using the stem of a broken wine glass, ornaments and other sharp instruments. She had also kicked and stamped on his body. he bled profusely. As well as the murder, the accused was convicted of attempting to deafeat the ends of justice by washing blood from the deceased and changing her own clothes and footwear.
Crawford v HMA 2012
murder case involving considerable bloodshed, there was a successful charge of attempting to defeat the ends of justice by, inter alia, contacting the emergency services using a disguised voice and also setting fire to clothing.
