HC Deb 12 December 1944 vol 406 cc1037-8
43. Mr. McKinlay

asked the Lord Advocate if his attention has been drawn to a decision in the Glasgow Sheriff Court on 24th July last, where a firm of restaurateurs, charged with obtaining meat to the value of £1,500 without a permit from the local food office, were found not guilty on direction from the learned sheriff on the ground that the onus of proof of their entitlement lay with the Fiscal; and if he will take steps to assimilate the law of Scotland to that of England in that matter.

The Lord Advocate (Mr. J. S. C. Reid)

I have inquired into this case. In accordance with Scottish practice in cases tried on indictment the Crown undertook the onus of proof in this matter, but in this case the Crown failed in the proof. The law as to onus of proof in this matter has not been authoritatively settled in Scotland. I am considering whether any change in the existing practice is desirable.

Mr. McKinlay

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that if this decision is permitted to stand every Statutory Order made by the Minister of Food becomes abortive? This was one of the filthiest cases in Scotland and the people got out it. If the law is left as it is, the onus of proof that any person purchased rationed commodities lies with the Ministry of Food instead of the purchasing authority.

The Lord Advocate

I have said that I am considering the matter. I should not like to act hastily in a matter which affects the rights and interests of accused persons, but I will certainly look into it and reach a decision at an early date as to the proper next step to take.

Sir Herbert Williams

Are we to understand that in Scotland a man is presumed guilty until he proves himself innocent?

The Lord Advocate

No, at present it is the other way. We undertake the onus of proof and it is represented that we should not.

Mr. McKinlay

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that this direction prevented any proof and that there was no rebutting evidence that the £1,500 worth of meat was illegally obtained? They never rebutted the charge. The Sheriff directed that the Fiscal ought to prove that these people have authority to buy. The thing is absurd.

The Lord Advocate

That is not in accordance with my information. The Crown attempted to prove that the man did not have a permit. The evidence on that point was not satisfactory and was not accepted, and therefore the Sheriff directed that the jury should return a verdict of not guilty.

Mr. McKinlay

I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment.