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.
The appellant appeals against convictions on charges of assault and robbery and fraud by using a credit card stolen from the complainer in the robbery charge. The case against the appellant was that he was acting on an art and part basis with his co-accused French, who was convicted of robbery and pled guilty to the charge of fraud. The grounds of appeal are that there was insufficient evidence to establish the crime of robbery and that on both charges there was insufficient evidence to establish that the appellant was acting in concert with the co-accused.
"What the Crown says is that Mr. Weir was clearly of the belief that Terry Kennedy played a part in the assault on him by being at hand and by moving closer when things didn't appear to be going as quickly as the person with the knife wanted them to, and Mr. Weir gave you his reasons for concluding that Terry Kennedy was something other than an innocent bystander".
Miss Scott submitted that these cases were examples of the application of the rule laid down in Smith v. Lees to the effect that evidence of distress cannot, by itself, corroborate a complainer's account of what happened. As there is no other evidence in the present case as to what happened in Melville Drive there is insufficient corroboration of the complainer's account.
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.