Clark v Stuart
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 12 October 1949 |
| Docket Number | No. 2. |
| Date | 12 October 1949 |
| Court | High Court of Justiciary |
HIGH COURT.
Lord Justice-General. Lord Carmont. Lord Keith.
Summary Procedure—Evidence—Objections to competency of evidence—Duty of presiding Judge.
At the trial of an accused, charged summarily with a contravention of sec. 15 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, objection was taken to the evidence of a police surgeon who had examined the accused, on the ground that the accused had not been properly cautioned and charged before the examination and that the evidence was therefore inadmissible. The Sheriff-substitute sustained the objection and found the charge not proven.
Observed, in an appeal, that in proceedings before a summary Court only exceptional circumstances would justify the exclusion outright of an important chapter of evidence, and that the normal and proper course was to allow such evidence under reservations as to competency, so that the question of law could, if necessary, be examined by a higher Court.
Jonathan Stuart was charged in the Sheriff Court at Dundee on a summary complaint at the instance of James Clark Procurator-fiscal, which set forth that "on 30th March 1949, in Strathmore Avenue and Strathmartine Road, Dundee, you did drive and have charge of a motor vehicle, namely a motor van, while under the influence of drink to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control of the vehicle: Contrary to section 15 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, 1930. …"
On 26th May 1949, after evidence had been led, the Sheriff-substitute (Cullen) found the charge not proven. At the request of the Procurator-fiscal he stated a case for appeal to the High Court of Justiciary.
The stated case, after referring to an objection to the competency of the complaint which had been repelled, set forth that the Sheriff-substitute found the following facts proved or admitted:—"(1) At about 12.15 a.m. on 30th March 1949 two constables of the city of Dundee police force observed a motor van being driven along Strathmore Avenue, Dundee. (2) These constables gave evidence, viz., constable Reynolds and constable Brown. Their attention was attracted to the motor van by the sound of loud voices proceeding from it; the motor van was being driven on its proper side of the road at a slow speed. (3) Constables Reynolds and Brown followed the motor van in another motor vehicle which they hailed. In the said motor vehicle they followed the motor van into Strathmartine Road, easily overtook it, and travelled alongside it. The motor van then stopped, and the said motor vehicle drew ahead...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Andrew Thompson V. Procurator Fiscal, Hamilton
...a trial and then excluded evidence would be inconsistent with the indication given by Lord Justice General Cooper in Clark v. Stuart 1950 J.C. 8 at p. 11 that in summary proceedings "it seems to me that only exceptional circumstances ... justify the exclusion of an important chapter of evid......
-
Galletly v Laird. McGown v Robertson
...any indecent or obscene book, paper, print, photograph, drawing, painting, representation, model, or figure …" 2 Clark v. StuartSC, 1950 J. C. 8, Lord Justice-General Cooper at p. 3 1931 J. C. 10. 4 8 Edw. VII, cap. 65. 5 Connell v. Mitchell, (1912) 7 Adam, 23, Lord Justice-Clerk Mac-donald......
-
Thompson v Crowe
...1977 JC 23 Brown v HM Advocate 1966 SLT 105 Chalmers v HM AdvocateSC 1954 JC 66 Chitambala v The QueenUNK [1961] R & N 166 Clark v StuartSC 1950 JC 8 Codona v HM Advocate 1996 SLT 1100 Jones v MilneSC 1975 JC 16 Manuel v HM AdvocateSC 1958 JC 41 Miln v CullenSC 1967 JC 21 Murphy v HM Advoca......
-
Gallacher v H. M. Advocate
...indictment, to a fine or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to both a fine and such imprisonment." 2 Clark v. StewartSC 1950 J. C. 8; Winning v. Jeans 1909 S. C. (J.) 26; Reid v. NixonSC 1948 J. C. 68; Smith, A Short Commentary on the Law of Scotland, p. 3 1948 J. C. 68. ......