Howden

Howden

1. Where there are different allegations but not evidence that the accused committed all crimes.

   • Where identification evidence for all but one, it is possible to infer the last offence so long as sufficiently similar to others.
     • Lack of identification of one charge not an impediment to conviction.

2. Robbery and attempted robbery with very similar circumstances but only positively identified as perpetrator of latter. If satisfied that both carried out by same man, could convict of both.

   • Circumstances were such that must have been committed by same person, resting on high degree of similarity.
   • If accused shown to have committed one, he also is said to have committed the other.
   • There may be no identification evidence, or weak evidence for one of the charges. May still be convicted of all if similar to another that he has been proved by corroborated evidence of committing.

3. Townsley v Less: Three thefts with very similar circumstances. One complainer identified accused as being of similar height and build, corroborated from evidence of neighbour. Second complainer made a positive identification, uncorroborated. Third could not identify but neighbour made tentative identification.

   • Moorov could apply to first two, corroborating evidence, but not third.
   • Howden could be applied to third, given first two corroborated and sufficiently similar circumstances.

4. Gillan v HMA: number of robberies with similar circumstances occuring in same place and same time day. No identification for one charge. Howden did not apply because not sufficiently related so not enough of a connection by identity.