Description
On 7 October 2005 at Glasgow Sheriff Court the appellant was found guilty as libelled by a majority verdict on four charges relating to contraventions of the
Firearms Act 1968. In the livingroom of the appellant's flat a rucksack was lying on the floor next to a chair which was next to the television set. A police officer asked the appellant if the rucksack was his to which he replied "Aye - oh, I don't know." The rucksack was found to contain a number of incriminating items. The grounds of appeal stated inter alia:- "...It is submitted that the proper approach had it been taken by the learned sheriff would have been to explain to the jury that they must be satisfied that there was evidence from which they could infer that the accused had knowledge of the contents of the rucksack rather than simply knowledge of the rucksack itself. It is submitted that this is a case very different from a situation where an allegation is made and the accused is guilty of supplying contraband or illegal substances and there is evidence that the accused in fact was aware that he was supplying something. In this particular case there was no evidence whatsoever that the accused had in fact ever had any contact with the rucksack or its contents...It is submitted that there was no evidence from which an inference could be drawn that the accused had knowledge of the contents of the rucksack and it was therefore crucial that the jury be directed to the effect that the essentials for satisfying the Crown case was establishing that the accused had knowledge of the contents of the rucksack not simply the presence of the rucksack itself." It was submitted for the appellant that the directions given by the trial sheriff were not adequate directions in relation to the matter of possession. The court here considered (1) was there a sufficencey of evidence (notwithstanding the lack of a "no case to answer submission") and (2) were the sheriff's directions ! in relat ion to possession adequate?
0141 553 4890
