Bisset v Anderson. Reid v Hill
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 11 March 1949 |
| Date | 11 March 1949 |
| Docket Number | No. 12. |
| Court | High Court of Justiciary |
HIGH COURT.
Lord Justice-General. Lord Carmont. Lord Keith.
Statutory Offences—Commercial petrol in tank of private motor vehicle—Evidence—Certificate of analysis—Act providing that certificate of an authorised analyst shall be "evidence of the facts therein stated"—Whether corroboration necessary—Motor Spirit (Regulation) Act, 1948 (11 and 12 Geo. VI, cap. 34), sec. 11.
The Motor Spirit (Regulation) Act, 1948, enacts, by sec. 2 (1), that, if there is "commercial" petrol in the tank of a private motor vehicle, the owner shall, unless he establishes one or other of two specified defences, be guilty of an offence. Sec. 2 (2) makes a similar provision for the case of any person acquiring "commercial" petrol for use in a private motor vehicle. The Act further enacts:—Sec. 11. "In any proceedings in respect of an offence under this Act, a certificate purporting to be signed by an authorised analyst and certifying the ingredients of any such sample of motor spirit as may be specified in the certificate shall, subject as hereinafter provided, be evidence of the facts therein stated: Provided that such a certificate shall not be admissible as evidence … (b) if [the person charged with the offence] … serves notice … on the prosecutor requiring the attendance at the hearing or trial of the person by whom the analysis was made."
Held (1) that the sole effect of sec. 11 is to make an analyst's certificate (where the person charged does not require the analyst's attendance at the trial under par. (b) admissible as evidence of the facts therein stated without being spoken to by the analyst; and, accordingly, (2) that the section does not warrant a conviction proceeding either on the certificate of a single analyst or on the oral evidence of a single analyst in the absence of corroboration.
Bisset v. Anderson.
George Bisset, 39 Union Road, Camelon, Falkirk, was charged in the Sheriff Court at Falkirk on a complaint at the instance of Alexander Gilchrist Anderson, Procurator-fiscal, which set forth that "on 10th August 1948, in a garage situated in the courtyard at the rear of the dwelling-house at 34 Union Road, Camelon, Falkirk, occupied by James Keir, you, being the owner of a private motor vehicle, viz., motor car, registered number WG 8155, then in said garage, did have commercial petrol in the tank of said private motor vehicle: Contrary to the Motor Spirit (Regulation) Act, 1948,1 section 2.…"
On 1st November 1948, after evidence had been led, the Sheriff-substitute (Macgregor, K.C.) found the charge proved, and, at the request of the accused, stated a case for appeal to the High Court of Justiciary.
The case set forth that the following facts, inter alia, were proved or admitted:—"(5) On putting a tube into the filler leading into the tank [of the appellant's motor car] no petrol came out and the constable who was taking a sample thought the tank was empty. An examination revealed the fact that the filler pipe leading from the outside of the car to the tank was disconnected from the tank so that the tube inserted by the constable instead of going into the tank passed into the luggage boot. The constable put the pipe right, inserted a tube to the tank and took a sample of the petrol in the tank. The petrol which came out was red in colour.…(7) The analyst's certificate (production No. 2) proved that the petrol taken from the car was commercial petrol."
The questions of law for the opinion of the Court included the following question:—"Upon the foregoing facts was I entitled to find the appellant guilty as libelled?"
The case was heard before the High Court of Justiciary (consisting of the Lord Justice-General, Lord Carmont and Lord Keith) on 24th February 1949.
At advising on 11th March 1949,—
LORD JUSTICE-GENERAL (Cooper).—In the leading case of Morton v. H. M. AdvocateSC9 a Full Bench reaffirmed the cardinal rule of criminal evidence that "by the law of Scotland, no person can be convicted of a crime or of a statutory offence, except where the Legislature otherwise directs, unless there is evidence of at least two witnesses implicating the person accused with the commission of the crime or offence with which he is charged." In other words the evidence of a single witness, however credible, is insufficient at common law to establish the truth of any essential fact required for a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gillespie v Macmillan
...Scott v. Jameson, (1914) 7 Adam, 529, 1914 S. C. (J.) 187, followed. Morton v. H. M. Advocate, 1938 J. C. 50, and Bisset v. Anderson, 1949 J. C. 106,commented on. Charles Mavor Machray Gillespie was charged in the Sheriff Court at Dunblane on a complaint at the instance of William Robert Du......
-
MacLeod v Nicol
...4 Reference was made to Callan v. MacFadyeanSC, 1950 J. C. 82. 5 [1963] 1 W. L. R. 1306. 6 Reference was made to Bisset v. AndersonSC, 1949 J. C. 106, Lord Justice-General Cooper at p. 7 10 and 11 Eliz. II, cap. 59. The provisions of sec. 2 (2), so far as material, are set forth in the rubr......
-
Callan v MacFadyean
...solids. 3 18 and 19 Geo. V, cap. 31. Sec. 28 (3) is quoted in the rubric. 4 Chalmers v. M'Meeking, 1921 J. C. 54. 5 Bisset v. AndersonSC, 1949 J. C. 106, Lord Justice-General Cooper at p. 6 1949 J. C. 106, Lord Justice-General Cooper at p. 111. 7 11 and 12 Geo. VI, cap. 34. 8 S. R. & 0. 190......
-
Commodity or Propriety? Unauthorised Transfer of Intangible Entitlements in the EU Emissions Trading System
...8 (OJ L 122/2).96 Registry Regulation, Art 40(2).97 Financial Markets Law Committee, n 92 above, 3.98 See discussion in Bisset vAnderson 1949 JC 106; M.L. Ross and J.P. Chalmers, Wal k er a ndWalker: The Law of Evidence in Scotland (Haywards Heath: Bloomsbury Professional, 4th ed,2015) para......