ROBERT ANDREW v. HER MAJESTY'S ADVOCATE

On 21 September 1998 the appellant was found guilty of a number of charges. He has appealed against his conviction on a number of grounds.

The first three grounds relate to the first charge, which was a charge of attempted robbery in the following terms:

"On 2 May 1998 at the premises of Bearsden Post Office at 27 Roman Road, Bearsden, while acting with another person and with faces masked and while you and said other person had with you loaded firearms, you did throw a spade through a window of said premises with the intention of entering said premises and robbing a person or person within of money from the safe within said premises and, by these means, you did attempt to rob Daniel Cyril Docherty, Post Master of said premises, of a sum of money".

"Where a statement contains points of identity and points of discrepancy, then, as previously indicated, it is for the jury to decide whether they are going to accept and proceed upon the points of identity, and if they do so the only question then is whether these points are sufficient in law to constitute corroboration of the admission of guilt. In the instant case the points of identity, if accepted, were clearly sufficient in law, and the judge very properly left the issue to the jury".

The same remarks apply to the present case. Even when one disregards the points of discrepancy to which Mr. Gebbie drew our attention, it is plain that the remaining parts of the statement contained ample material to entitle the jury to conclude that they were made by someone who had the knowledge of a person who was present as a perpetrator at the time when the crime was committed.