Criminal Law and Practice in Scotland
| DOI | 10.1177/0032258X4601900204 |
| Published date | 01 April 1946 |
| Date | 01 April 1946 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
Criminal
Law
and
Practice
in
Scotland
MUST
THE
COMPLAINT
BE READ ?
Pennington
v. Mackenzie
ON the first calling of a case in a Scottish court of summary juris-
diction, the accused being present in person, must the complaint
be read to
him?
If
so, are there any exceptions to the
rule?
Apart
from such exceptions, is failure to read the complaint fatal to conviction
and sentence? Answers to these questions are provided by the recent
case of
Pennington
v. Mackenzie, heard, on appeal, by the High Court
of Justiciary. After a long argument, in which all aspects of the matter
were fully canvassed, the court decided (I)
that
the complaint ought
to have been read in open court and that failure to read it was a gross
irregularity;
but
(2) that, in the special circumstances, there had been
no miscarriage of justice, the court would not be warranted in inter-
fering, and both conviction and sentence must stand.
Pennington, a lorry driver and fitter employed by a firm of air-
craft repairers at Stornoway, while driving a Dodge service truck,
was involved in a road accident involving slight damage to his own and
another vehicle. He was arrested, taken to a police station, examined
by a doctor called in by the police and formally charged with a contra-
vention of section 15 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930.
This
being done,
he was, at his own request, examined by a second doctor whom he
named and with whom he had a private interview and detained over-
night. Next morning, after a second interview with his own doctor,
Pennington was informed by the local police superintendent that he
could see a solicitor but, after discussing the matter with his own
foreman, who had called and seen him, intimated
that
he intended
to plead guilty and that the services of alaw agent would be unnecessary.
Thereafter, about mid-day, the hour of the meeting of the Stornoway
sheriff court, Pennington was brought into the courtroom in custody
and placed in the dock. While seated there to await the entry of the
sheriff, he was handed (either by the depute sheriff clerk or by the
superintendent) a full copy of the complaint about to be tabled against
him, in which the penalties to which he might render himself liable
by a plea of guilty were fully set
out-including
a reference to the possi-
bility of disqualification. According to the official present, he read
this
complaint;
but
Pennington himself maintained
that
he did not
read
it.
Very shortly after this incident, the sheriff entered. Penning-
ton's case was called and he was asked, by the sheriff clerk, two
questions-first,
if
he knew
the
charge against him and, secondly,
9S
To continue reading
Request your trial