Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
[2] The offence of which the appellant was convicted was one of being in possession of diamorphine at Glenochil Prison with intent to supply it to another. At the time of his commission of the offence, the appellant was a visitor to the prison. His father was at the time a prisoner there. The Crown led evidence that the appellant had been stopped and searched in the prison, and had been found to have the drugs in his pocket. When cautioned by a police officer, the appellant had replied:
"I got a phone call last night and told to meet a guy who gave me stuff and told me to take into my dad, to take it in as my dad was in trouble."
"It is only where, following threats, there is an immediate danger of violence, in whatever form it takes, that the defence of coercion can be entertained, and even then only if there is an inability to resist or avoid that immediate danger. If there is time and opportunity to seek and obtain the shield of the law in a well-regulated society, then recourse should be made to it, and if it is not then the defence of coercion is not open. It is the danger which has to be 'immediate', not just the threat."
It is apparent from the evidence of the appellant in the present case (and also that of his father) that the appellant had the opportunity to inform the authorities of the situation, but chose not to do so, because he was afraid. Such circumstances cannot amount to a complete defence to a criminal charge, although they may, if accepted, be taken into account in mitigation of sentence.
[6] In his report to this court, the sheriff states that the witness entered the witness box handcuffed to a prison officer. The solicitor for the appellant moved the sheriff to direct the prison officer to release the witness from the handcuffs. The sheriff asked the prison officer if he was willing to do so, and the officer replied in the negative. In the interests of security, the sheriff deferred to the judgment of the prison officer, who was responsible for the safe return of the witness to prison.
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.