GEORGE ALEXANDER MUIRHEAD AND HUGH WILLIAM CAMERON v. HER MAJESTY'S ADVOCATE

As regards the appellant Muirhead, the first ground of appeal is that there was insufficient evidence to entitle the jury to convict him of a contravention of section 4(3)(b). In order to examine this submission it is necessary for us to set out a summary of the relevant evidence which was relied upon in support of conviction.

Craig Scott gave evidence to the same general effect as his brother in regard to their movements during the day. When Muirhead returned to the car at the block of flats he realised that something was going on. They were to meet a red car at the car park. The purpose of that meeting, he thought, was that Muirhead was going to pick up some amphetamine for his brother. There was no discussion in front of him about how much his brother wanted.

The second ground of appeal advanced on behalf of Muirhead is that the sheriff misdirected the jury in regard to what could be constituted by the offence of being concerned in the supplying of a controlled drug. During the course of his charge the sheriff pointed out to the jury that section 4(3)(b) had a wide application. He said that it meant that

"if someone is acting as a courier, simply transporting drugs without payment, that is being concerned. If you make a telephone call to arrange an uplift of drugs, that can be concerned in the supply. If you collect money, if somebody supplies drugs for someone else and you are asked to go and pick up some money and its money for drugs, then that is being concerned in supply".

Thus far there was no complaint in regard to his directions. However, the sheriff then continued as follows: