THOMAS CAMERON v. HER MAJESTY'S ADVOCATE

The appellant was convicted of Charge 1 by a majority verdict. He now appeals against conviction, and also seeks a consequential reduction of sentence.

Passers-by became aware of a disturbance taking place in the complainer's house and summoned the police. Police officers arrived whilst the assailants were still in the property, but they managed to escape through a rear window into a courtyard. They were not traced at that stage.

The only evidence incriminating the appellant was a single fingerprint. The fingerprint of his left forefinger was found on the exterior surface of the living room door, four feet up at the open edge. This was agreed by Joint Minute. The fingerprint examiner who gave evidence, Karen McBride, explained that it was impossible to express any view as to when the fingerprint had been left on the door.

The complainer also stated in evidence that he very rarely had visitors to his house. The only visitors he regularly received were his brother and the minister from his local church. When asked in evidence, the complainer said that he could think of no reason why the appellant would have come to visit him in his house. In cross-examination the complainer confirmed that he had been the tenant of the property for a total period of about two and a half years. He gave up the tenancy about 3 months after the robbery. So he had lived there for around 2 years and 3 months at the time of the robbery.

The appellant did not give evidence. Accordingly, there was no evidence as to an innocent explanation for the presence of the appellant's fingerprint on an internal door in the complainer's house. The appellant was the only person who could have supplied such an innocent explanation. In his police interview the appellant was asked if he could explain the presence of the fingerprint, but he declined to offer any explanation for it.