Supreme Court Appellant’s Explanation "Simply Incredible”

Press, Volume CV, Issue 31005, 10 March 1966, Page 11

Supreme Court Appellant’s Explanation "Simply Incredible”

A man convicted of theft when he sold a television set, said to have been on hire to him from the firm he was temporarily working for, claimed in the Supreme Court yesterday that it had been a gift. He found this explanation “simply incredible,” said Mr Justice Wilson, dismissing the man’s appeal against conviction.

The appellant, Leslie William MacClure, a salesman, was convicted of the theft of the television set on December 2, and at the same time acquitted of the theft of a washing machine. It was traversed, during the Magistrate’s Court hearing, whether the television set had been on hire to him, a loan, or a gift. Nothing less than the set being an outright gift could justify MacClure's selling of it, said his Honour. But to regard it as a gift, in the circumstances, was “just simply incredible.” Mr J. F. Burn, counsel for MacClure, said he could not for a moment accept that. “The explanation may be unlikely, highly unlikely,” he said, “but not for a moment incredible.” His Honour: Frankly, my common sense rebels against it. Mr Burn, in his submissions, said that the credibility of the complainant, a man Holmes, the branch manager of the firm which owned the television set, was important. It was quite clear that the Magistrate, on the matter of the washing machine, had not felt safe in accepting his credibility. Holmes, submitted Mr Burn, was at least as likely to have been guilty of a criminal offence as MacClure. His Honour: In other words, he was an accomplice? Mr Burn: No. His Honour: He might have been a criminal? Mr Burn: Yes. I cannot say that he was. But it is at least as likely. MacClure said that the television set was a gift, Mr Burn said. Holmes said it was a hire. But the set was not invoiced as a hire until seven weeks after its delivery to MacClure, who had only worked for the firm for seven or eight weeks. “It follows, inescapably, that the set was not recorded as a hire by Holmes until MacClure was leaving the firm,” Mr Burn submitted. This might well be a covering of his own tracks, he said. “I cannot say it was, but it could have been.” His Honour agreed that this showed “a strong probability” that Holmes had

given MacClure possession of the television set without authority. But even if the Magistrate had held it was an unauthorised loan, and not a hire, it did not follow that he must reject the whole of Holmes’s evidence, and accept MacClure’s explanation that the set was a gift. “The inherent unlikelihood of it being a gift is so strong that no reasonable person can accept that explanation,” said his Honour. MacClure, then going under an assumed name, had been an unknown employee, save that he was known to be in financial difficulties. Was it likely he should be made a gift of a valuable television set?

“It’s just simply incredible,” said his Honour. “I confirm the conviction, and the appeal is dismissed.”