Breen v Pirie
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 25 March 1976 |
| Date | 25 March 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 13. |
| Court | High Court of Justiciary |
JC
L. J. -G. Emslie, Lords Cameron, Avonside.
Statutory Offences—Road Traffic Acts—Driving motor vehicle while unfit to drive through drink or drugs—Arrest—Validity of arrest—Road Traffic Act 1972 (cap. 20), sec. 5.
-
Sec. 5 (1) of the Road Traffic Act 1972 provides that a person who, when driving or attempting to drive a motor vehicle on a road or other public place, is unfit to drive through drink or drugs, shall be guilty of an offence. Sec. 5 (5) of the Act provides: "A constable may arrest without warrant a person committing an offence under this section."
-
A motor car crashed on a public road. A passing motorist reported the accident to the police. About 20 minutes after the accident two uniformed police officers found the accused about a mile from the accident. The police officers thought he was under the influence of alcohol. They knew he was employed by the owner of the motor car in question and that from time to time the accused drove such a car. The police officers made no enquiries about the accident at that stage but arrested him under sec. 5 (5) of the 1972 Act. Only subsequently did they ascertain that the report they had of the accident to the motor car was true and then make a search which revealed nobody else in the vicinity of the car. Thereafter the accused was charged with a contravention of sec. 5 (1) of the Act. At his trial evidence was given that a doctor had examined him and certified that his ability to drive was impaired through drink, and that the doctor had taken a sample of his blood which on analysis showed a proportion of 165 milligrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of his blood. The accused was convicted, the Sheriff holding that he had been lawfully arrested under the said sec. 5 (5).
-
Held that the purported arrest under the said sec. 5 (5) was invalid, since the arresting officers” conclusion that the accused had contravened sec. 5 (1) of the said Act of 1972 was not based on their own observations, or on facts within their own knowledge; and conviction under sec. 5 (1) quashed.
-
Wiltshire v. BarrettELR, [1966] 1 Q.B. 312, R. v. WayUNK, [1970] R.T.R. 348, and Seaton v. Allan,1973 J.C. 24, followed.
-
Observed that it could not be said that at the time of the arrest the accused was either committing or apparently committing an offence under the said sec. 5 (1).
Michael Joseph Breen was charged in the Sheriff Court at Dumfries on a complaint at the instance of Iain Gordon Pirie, Procurator-fiscal, which set forth that "1. On 22nd March 1975, on a road or other public place, namely the Dumfries-Kilmarnock A76 road at a part thereof opposite High Cairn Dairy, Parish of Kirkconnel, Dumfriesshire, you did drive a motor vehicle, namely a motor car Regd. No. UCS 925K, while you were unfit to drive through drink or drugs: Contrary to the Road Traffic Act 1972, Section 5 (1).
The accused pled not guilty.
After trial the Sheriff (Nicholson) found the accused guilty. At the request of the accused he stated a case for the opinion of the High Court of Justiciary.
The case set forth that the following facts were admitted or proved.—"(1) At about 1.15 a.m. on 22nd March 1975 police officers in Sanquhar Police Station received a telephone message from Ayr Police Headquarters that a Land Rover, registration number UCS 925K, had crashed on the A76 road opposite High Cairn Dairy. A passing motorist had reported the matter at Cumnock Police Station and the police there caused the message to be sent to Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary. At about the same time another motorist called personally at Sanquhar Police Station to report the incident. (2) Two officers in uniform made their way there and, about one mile before they reached thelocus of the accident at about 1.35 a.m., they spotted the appellant behind a dyke at the roadside. They knew that he was employed by the owner of the Land Rover and from time to time drove it. They stopped and found that the appellant's clothing was dishevelled, his eyes were glazed, his breath smelling of alcohol, his speech was slightly slurred and he walked with a slight stagger. They thereupon concluded that he had been driving the vehicle when unfit through drink and thereupon arrested him under section 5 of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kevin Keegan And Kevin Mcmullen And Robert Mclean V. Procurator Fiscal, Paisley
...seen by the arresting constables that would have justified their suspicion that an offence was being committed. The case of Breen v Pirie 1976 J.C. 60 was also referred to. It was submitted that in that case the Court had held that where a statutory provision provides that "a constable may ......
-
Smith v Ross
...by evidence which has nothing to do with the statutory procedures considered in the case of Seaton and in the case of Breen v. PirrieSC, 1976 J.C. 60. In this case the evidence demonstrating contravention of section 5 (1) before the Sheriff was quite overwhelming. None of it depended to any......
-
Topping v Scott
...recent damage and that the Appellant admitted being its driver. In support of this contention Mr Pollock referred toBreen v. PirieSC 1976 J.C. 60 and Merry v. DohertySC 1977 J.C. 34. If then that test was wrongly administered all that followed was inept and the conviction on charge 3 could ......
-
Keegan v Gilchrist
...to trial before the sheriff. On being convicted, the accused appealed to the High Court of Justiciary. Cases referred to: Breen v PirieSC 1976 JC 60 Nicol v LoweUNK1989 SCCR 675 The cause called before the High Court of Justiciary, comprising Lord Caplan, Lord Cowie and Lord Allanbridge for......