Przemyslaw Gal was convicted of forcing open a secure door and stealing money from a restaurant in Edinburgh. 
It was argued by the appellant that the summary sheriff did not have sufficient evidence to convict him of the crime. The Crown case was based on evidence from the restaurants manager and CCTV evidence. The manager stated that at the end of her shift she noticed that around £200 had been taken from her purse. In evidence she stated that her purse had remained in a locked office within the premises. The door of this was located on the way to the toilets. 
The CCTV evidence showed footage of the appellant entering the toilet and then leaving after only a few moments. The footage then showed him entering a storeroom which was locked with a keypad. He then used a key to open the door of the staff office, he was there for around 40 seconds and then exited. 
It was submitted on behalf of the appellant that the crown evidence did not show that he had the money in his possession at any time. It was argued that as a result of this proof of theft had not been completed. The appellant referred to the case of McDonald v Herron (1966), in this case the High Court quashes a conviction of theft. The accused had been convicted on the basis of two witnesses identifying him in the area and behaving in a suspicious way. However, there was no evidence that the stolen property was found in his possession. 
The advocate depute submitted that conclusions could be drawn from the CCTV. It was argued that the appellant had no legitimate purpose for being in the office and that he was looking for something to steal. It was submitted that it was not necessary for proof of theft that there be evidence from two separate sources, which each describe the precise nature of the item and disappearance. It was argued that from the evidence it was clear that something had been taken. 
In providing the opinion of the court, Sheriff Principal Turnbull referred to Fox v HM Advocate (1998) and cited the dictum of Lord Justice General Rodger: “The starting point is the direct evidence. So long as the circumstantial evidence is independent and confirms or supports the direct evidence on the crucial facts, it provides corroboration, and the requirements of legal proof are met.” 
In considering the evidence he stated: “The starting point in the present case is the evidence of LAM. It was clear and unequivocal. The sheriff found her to be a wholly credible and reliable witness. The CCTV footage is independent of the evidence of LAM.” 
He continued: “The sheriff was satisfied, from the footage, that the appellant’s actions were suspicious. The appellant might, if he was a customer of the restaurant, have had a right to use the gents’ toilet, but he had no right to enter either of the locked rooms. His demeanour and his behaviour were highly suspicious. That carried with it a clear inference of dishonest intent.” 
In conclusion he stated: “As set out in Reid v HM Advocate (2017), it is not necessary for proof of theft that there be evidence from two separate sources, each describing the precise nature of the missing item and its disappearance. In the present case, the sheriff was entitled to reach the decision he did.” 
As a result, the appeal was refused.