Bruce v H M Advocate: HCJ 1936

Several witnesses who were asked to speak to certain facts in connection with the indictment spoke of ‘the accused James Bruce’. But they were not asked directly to identify in court the person to whom they were referring in their evidence.
Held: The identification of the accused by witnesses who are speaking to the facts should, in every case, be a matter of careful and express question on the part of the prosecutor.


Lord Wark


1936 JC 93

Cited by:

CitedHolland v Her Majesty’s Advocate (Devolution) PC 11-May-2005
The defendant appealed his convictions for robbery. He had been subject to a dock identification, and he complained that the prosecution had failed in its duties of disclosure.
Held: The combination of several failings meant that the defendant . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Scotland, Criminal Practice

Updated: 30 April 2022; Ref: scu.225519