CHARLES WALTER WHITE v. PROCURATOR FISCAL, PERTH

The matter was raised at the end of the prosecution case by way of submission. The submission was repelled and a conviction followed. The submission now is that both the rejection of the original submission and the subsequent conviction were wrong in law. As Mr Shead said in presenting the matter, the case falls really within a quite narrow compass.

However, according to Constable Clark's evidence, the appellant's mood then changed. He refused to put the previous conviction in the application form. He explained that he had been admonished but had not been fined or convicted. He was again told that it would have to be declared on the application form. The appellant then took the form from Police Constable Clark and printed "None" in answer to the relevant question, the question being "Have you been convicted of any offence? If yes, give details."

Some days later, again at the farm, the appellant was told by the same constable that he was going to be charged with failing to divulge a conviction on his application to renew his shotgun certificate. The appellant then said to that police constable, and on this occasion this was in the presence of another constable, "You were on your own last time. I didn't know I had a conviction. You're making up stories". The question arises whether there is a corroborated case made by the Crown.

When the two constables go back on 14 November the application form is again what is being discussed and is the subject matter of the visit; and the appellant's reply when faced with the information that he was going to be charged with failing to divulge a conviction on his application in no way repudiates the application, but makes comments showing that he regards the previous visit as the subject matter of the current discussion. It is in these comments that corroboration is sought.