RITCHIE AGAINST HER MAJESTY'S ADVOCATE

Factual and Procedural Background

On 6 June 2019, at the Sheriff Court in The City, the Appellant was found guilty of breaking into a dwelling house owned by an individual at a location in The City and stealing jewellery, medals, coins, and a box. The offence was committed while the Appellant was on bail. The Appellant was sentenced to 21 months imprisonment, with 3 months attributable to the bail aggravation.

The occupier of the house had died shortly before the offence. The house was checked on 11 May and found intact, but by the next day it had been ransacked. A window had been forced, and a small black metal torch, not belonging to the house, was found inside. The torch was confirmed to belong to the Appellant, whose DNA was found on it.

Expert evidence was led by both the Crown and the defence regarding DNA deposit, transfer, and interpretation, with disagreement about certain DNA peaks—Crown experts considered them artefacts, defence experts suggested they indicated unknown persons.

In a police interview, the Appellant admitted being near the house and explained the presence of his DNA on the torch by stating that he had previously given a black rubber torch to his brother about a month prior. However, the torch found was metal, not rubber.

The Crown’s case focused on the involvement of the Appellant’s brother, who had prior convictions. The Crown challenged the credibility of the Appellant’s interview explanations. The defence objected to certain Crown remarks, but the Sheriff considered standard jury directions sufficient.

The Sheriff directed the jury on the burden and standard of proof, emphasizing the Appellant’s right not to prove innocence and the need for the Crown to disprove the defence case beyond reasonable doubt. The jury was instructed to treat hypothetical scenarios presented during the trial with caution and only as evidence if supported by factual testimony.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Sheriff’s directions to the jury regarding the burden and standard of proof, particularly concerning hypothetical DNA transfer scenarios and the defence explanation, were correct and did not mislead the jury.
2. Whether the Crown’s remarks during closing submissions improperly shifted the burden of proof onto the Appellant.
3. Whether any misdirection or error in the Sheriff’s instructions resulted in a miscarriage of justice warranting appeal.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Sheriff misdirected the jury by effectively reversing the onus of proof through instructions on hypothetical scenarios related to DNA evidence.
• The defence’s explanation that the torch found could have been lent to the incriminated brother was supported by evidence and not merely hypothetical.
• The Crown’s prosecutorial remarks suggested an improper burden on the Appellant to prove innocence, which the Sheriff failed to correct.
• These errors were misleading and apt to confuse the jury, potentially causing a miscarriage of justice.

Respondent's Arguments

• The Sheriff’s directions properly encouraged the jury to scrutinise evidence carefully and did not shift the burden of proof.
• The Crown’s remarks were submissions on the evidence, not statements of law, and the Sheriff was best placed to determine the adequacy of directions.
• The overall directions made clear the burden remained on the Crown and that the Appellant bore no onus to prove innocence.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court analysed the Sheriff’s directions in the context of the entire trial, focusing on the explanation of the burden and standard of proof. While acknowledging that the Sheriff could have expressed certain points with greater clarity—particularly regarding the defence’s version and the DNA evidence—the directions, when read as a whole, made clear that the burden remained on the Crown. The Court noted the Sheriff appropriately instructed the jury to treat hypothetical scenarios with caution and only accept them if supported by evidence.

The Court further observed that the Crown’s prosecutorial remarks were submissions on evidence rather than legal statements, and the Sheriff was in the best position to determine the necessity and sufficiency of any corrective directions. No material misdirection was found, and no miscarriage of justice was identified.

Holding and Implications

The Court REFUSED THE APPEAL.

The direct effect is that the Appellant’s conviction and sentence remain upheld. The decision confirms that the Sheriff’s directions on burden and hypothetical evidence were legally sufficient and did not mislead the jury. No new precedent was established by this ruling.