GEORGE BAIGRIE v. HER MAJESTY'S ADVOCATE

[1] The appellant is George Baigrie. On 29 June 2000 in Edinburgh Sheriff Court he was convicted of assault to severe injury and permanent disfigurement. He appealed against conviction on two grounds.

[3] Mr McInnes, solicitor advocate for the appellant, submitted that it was certainly improper for the procurator fiscal to have made reference to the column in the identification parade report and that her motive could only have been to help the Crown. The question was whether what she did could be saved by direction by the sheriff.

[4] In our view this is indeed the correct question. We agree that it was improper for the procurator fiscal to make reference to that column and it should not have been done. However, we are not persuaded that it was a matter which could not be cured by the direction of the sheriff and we are quite satisfied that the very clear direction by the sheriff on the matter was sufficient to remedy the error.

[5] The second ground of appeal was that the sheriff misdirected the jury when he directed them at page 18 of his Charge to the jury on the law applicable to the statement made to the police by the co-accused McIntyre.

[6] Mr. McInnes pointed out that the sheriff had told the jury that what McIntyre had said to the police outwith the appellant's presence could not be evidence against the appellant. That was correct but McIntyre had then given evidence from the witness box and adopted what he had earlier said to the police as the truth. Accordingly, if he had said anything favourable concerning the appellant, that was evidence in the appellant's case and the sheriff in his directions did not make that sufficiently clear to the jury.