Criminal Law & Practice in Scotland
| Published date | 01 January 1954 |
| Date | 01 January 1954 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/0032258X5402700103 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
18
THE
POLICE
JOURNAL
Criminal
Law
&
Practice
in
Scotland
"IN
CHARGE"
IN two recent cases, the question
of
whether amotorist was
"in
charge" of his car within the meaning
of
section I 5 of the
Road
Traffic Act, I930, was sharply raised on appeal to the High
Court
of
Justiciary. In the first of these cases the question was answered in the
affirmative; in the second in the negative.
The first appeal arose
out
of
the acquittal in the Sheriff
Court
at
Forfar
of a motorist charged with having been found
"drunk"
in
charge
of
his
car
at Friockheim, acountry town in the County
of
Angus. The ground of the sheriff's refusal to find the charge proved
was that the accused had made no attempt to drive and, indeed,
had
had no intention of driving. The procurator-fiscal appealed success-
fully, the case being remitted back to the sheriff with a direction to
convict.
It
appears that, on the date libelled in the complaint, the respondent
drove to a hotel in Friockheim, where he booked aroom. He then
parked his car and went to another hotel to look for a friend. In the
second hotel, he drank some whisky. Having done so, he fell asleep
in a chair. On being awakened, he left the hotel and started to walk
back to his own hotel. On the way back, he passed his parked car,
which he entered to collect some papers. He noticed that one
of
the
sidelights was not lit
and
pressed the self-starter, in the hope
that
the
vibration might restore the connection. The ignition key was in his
pocket
but
he did not take it out. At this point the Police intervened.
He was arrested
and
subsequently charged.
The unanimous opinion of the High Court judges who heard the
appeal was
that
there could hardly have been clearer evidence of a
person being
"in
charge" of a car than
that
disclosed in the case
under review. The respondent was the owner of the car. He was in a
position to manipulate the controls. He was in possession of the
ignition key. The sheriff
had
been mistaken in his view that, indeciding
whether or not a person was
"in
charge" of a car, it was relevant to
consider whether or not he intended to drive it. Section 15
of
the
Traffic Act,1930, set
out
three separate situations in which a
drunk
motorist could be
charged-(l)
if he were driving; (2) if he
were attempting to drive;
and
(3) if he were in charge. The
court
could not accept the view
that
a man had to intend to drive a car in
order
to be
"in
charge" of it.
In the second
case-that
of a Border farmer found guilty in the
To continue reading
Request your trial