Allan v Patterson
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 24 October 1979 |
| Date | 24 October 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 11. |
| Court | High Court of Justiciary |
JC
L.J.-G. Emslie, Lords Cameron, Grieve.
Statutory offences—Road Traffic Acts—Reckless driving—Meaning of "reckless"—Whether subjective or objective test of recklessness to be applied—Road Traffic Act 1972 (cap. 20), sec. 2, as amended by Criminal Law Act 1977 (cap. 45), sec. 50 (1).1
The respondent was charged with reckless driving in contravention of sec. 2 of the Road Traffic Act 1972. He was acquitted, the Sheriff holding that no one could be convicted of driving recklessly unless it was shown (a) that he knew there were material risks in driving in a particular manner, and (b) that he deliberately decided to drive in that manner regardless of the possible consequences.
Held (1) that, in order to establish the commission of an offence under sec. 2 of the 1972 Act, inquiry into the state of knowledge of the particular driver and his intention at the time was not required. All that was in issue was (a) the degree to which the driver falls below the standard to be expected of a careful and competent driver in all the circumstances of the case; and (b) whether the degree was one to which in the judgment of the court or jury it was proper to attach the epithet or label of "reckless." (2) That the test to be applied was objective.
William Arthur Patterson was charged at the instance of Charles Baird Allan, Procurator-fiscal, Jedburgh, "that on 11th September 1978 on the Kelso to Ednam Road and Edenside Road, Kelso, District of Roxburgh, you did drive a motor vehicle, namely a motor cycle, recklessly at a place where a child on his way to or from school was seeking to cross the road and, having been required to stop said motor cycle by a school crossing patrol in uniform and exhibiting a prescribed sign, did fail to stop said motor cycle: Contrary to the Road Traffic Act 1972, section 2."
After trial on 22nd February 1979 the Sheriff (Paterson) found the respondent not guilty. On 23rd February 1979 the Procurator-fiscal requested the Sheriff to state a case for the opinion of the High Court of Justiciary. The case set forth that the following facts, inter alia, were admitted or proved:— "(10) While the respondent was still some distance north of the junction of Edenside Road and Inch Road and was in any event to the north of the speed restriction sign a school crossing patrol attendant took up a position in the centre of Edenside Road to the south of its junction with Inch Road. (11) That attendant was in uniform and carrying a “lollipop” sign. (12) The attendant held up and displayed the “lollipop” sign. (13) At that time there was one very young boy on the west pavement waiting to cross Edenside Road. There were no other persons waiting to cross the road. (14) The attendant was alarmed by the speed at which the respondent approached and told the boy not to move. (15) While the attendant was standing in the middle of the road the respondent drove closely past her on his motor cycle. (16) The respondent did not stop."
In his note the Sheriff stated, inter alia:—"It is clear that Parliament intended that section 2 as amended should make a radical alteration in the law. That alteration was, if I understand the matter correctly, required because there was little or no substance in the distinction between very bad driving (the old section 2) and bad driving—the section 3 offence. The two sections shaded into one another. Both required negligence and that having been established the question became one of degree. The change to be one of substance must involve, in my opinion, the abolition in section 2 cases of the question of negligence and the substitution therefor...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Carr v Hm Advocate
...to find was a basis for the inference that the pannel intended to set fire to the building; and appeal refused. Allan v. PattersonSC 1980 J.C. 57 distinguished. Alexander Dewar Carr was charged on an indictment at the instance of the Rt. Hon. The Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Q.C., Her Majesty......
-
Transco Plc v HM Advocate
...Cases referred to: Advocate (HM) v Latto (1857) 2 Irvine 732 Advocate's (Lord) Reference (No 1 of 1994) 1995 SLT 248 Allan v PattersonSC 1980 JC 57 Andrews v Director of Public ProsecutionsELR [1937] AC 576 Attorney General's Reference (No 2 of 1999)ELR [2000] QB 796 Bolton (H L) (Engineeri......
-
Transco Plc V. Her Majesty's Advocate
...relation to statutory offences (whether in Scotland or in England) or in the field of manslaughter under English law. In Allan v Patterson 1980 J.C. 57 this court required to construe the word "recklessly" as it appeared in section 2 of the Road Traffic Act 1972 (as amended by the Criminal ......
-
R v Lawrence (Stephen)
...cause no more trouble to the profession, academics or juries. I also associate myself with what he has said about the Scottish case of Allan v. Patterson [1980] R.T.R. 97. The case of Stephenson [1979] 1 Q.B. 695 was discussed before us, but in view of what has just been said before your Lo......
-
REVISITING RASH DRIVING
...Eng v PP [2009] 3 SLR(R) 682 at [5]. 63 Lim Hong Eng v PP [2009] 3 SLR(R) 682 at [5]. 64 Concise Oxford English Dictionary (11th Ed). 65 [1980] RTR 97. This case is cited in the 2005 edition of Wilkinson‘s Road Traffic Offences (Sweet & Maxwell, 22nd Ed, 2005) as the position in Scottish la......