WILLIAM MORTON MURRAY v. HER MAJESTY'S ADVOCATE

The appellant was thereafter taken to the charge bar of the local police station where, according to the sheriff's report, he spontaneously said in the presence of four police officers, all of whom gave evidence: "I don't know if it was me that hit Scott. I just did that. " The police witnesses said that he then threw his right arm up. He then hit his head off the charge bar several times and said: "What have I done? He's my friend". In his charge to the jury (at page 4C) the sheriff rehearsed the evidence thus:

"There are the four police officers who are not four sources because they are all speaking to evidence coming from the same source, namely the accused, who says he hit him with a bottle, he did not know why he did it, he is sorry, he was banging his head in anguish or whatever on the charge bar, but the four police officers are not four separate sources of evidence".

We assume that what the sheriff said in his report is the correct version of what the appellant said and did at the charge bar, according to the evidence from the police officers.

Miss Scott went on to argue grounds 1(b) and 2 of the grounds of appeal. She submitted that the sheriff had failed to direct the jury that if they believed the appellant's evidence or if it raised a reasonable doubt about his guilt, they were bound to acquit him. There is no doubt that, in terms, the sheriff failed to give this direction, although he did say, at pages 5F to 6B:

"If the evidence of any witness satisfies you that the accused is not guilty, your verdict is of course not guilty. If any piece of evidence in the case causes you to have reasonable doubt as to whether he is guilty, again, it is your duty to acquit because the Crown would not then have proved its case beyond reasonable doubt".