Thomas Cameron v. Her Majesty's Advocate [2012] HCJAC 164

Criminal Note of Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence:- The appellant was indicted on two charges of robbery and went to trial on charge 1 after he pled guilty to charge 2. The appellant was convicted by a majority verdict of the remaining charge. The appellant appealed against his conviction and a consequential reduction of the sentence imposed. It was contended that the trial judge erred in repelling the “no case to answer” submission motion made on behalf of the appellant at the end Crown case under section 97 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995. It was submitted on behalf of the appellant that there was insufficient evidence to identify the appellant as one of the perpetrators. The sole piece of evidence incriminating the appellant was a single fingerprint, identified as that of his left forefinger, found on the "hall-side" of the living-room door, about 4 feet up and at the open edge. There had been no expert evidence that the fingerprint had been made by someone touching or pushing the door in the act of opening the door and all that could be said was that the appellant had been in the flat and had touched the living-room door at an unspecified time.It was accepted that a fingerprint could, in certain circumstances, provide a sufficient basis for a conviction, however, it was submitted that in the present case the evidence was insufficient to allow the case to go to the jury. On behalf of the Crown it was submitted that the trial judge had been entitled to repel the "No case to answer" submission and the jury were entitled to take into account the fact that there was no alternative explanation for the presence of the fingerprint and the absence of any alternative explanation along with the finding of the fingerprint and the evidence of the householder was sufficient. Here the court considered whether the various circumstances present in the case, for example, during the robbery both assailants had gone into the living room and also the complainer could not think of any reason why the appellant would have been in his flat during the 27 months he had been living there, were sufficient evidence for the case to go to the jury and that the trial judge was entitled to reject the “No case to answer” submission.