Thomson v HM Advocate [2010] ScotHC HCJAC_129 (23 December 2010)

Thomson v HM Advocate [2010] ScotHC HCJAC_129 (23 December 2010)

There was sufficient corroborated evidence for conviction, the jury was properly directed on circumstantial evidence, and the sheriff's directions regarding the appellant's silence were correct and adequate; no miscarriage of justice occurred.

Citation
[2010] ScotHC HCJAC_129
Parties
Appellant: William Stuart Thomson; Respondent: Her Majesty's Advocate
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
23 December 2010
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
appeal refused
Legal Topics
Proceeds of Crime, Corroboration, Circumstantial Evidence, Adverse Inference From Silence
Criminal Law Proceeds of Crime Corroboration Circumstantial Evidence Adverse Inference From Silence

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

William Stuart Thomson

Appellant

Her Majesty's Advocate

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was sufficient corroborated evidence for conviction under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002
  2. 2 Whether the jury was properly directed on circumstantial evidence
  3. 3 Whether the sheriff's directions regarding the appellant's silence were adequate

Ratio Decidendi

There was sufficient corroborated evidence for conviction, the jury was properly directed on circumstantial evidence, and the sheriff's directions regarding the appellant's silence were correct and adequate; no miscarriage of justice occurred.

Court Disposition

appeal refused