Criminal Law and Practice in Scotland
| Date | 01 January 1957 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0032258X5703000104 |
| Published date | 01 January 1957 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
CRIMINAL
LAW
AND
PRACTICE
IN
SCOTLAND 23
first charge. The appellants did
not
even print individual names of
clubs and promoters on the tickets,
but
left a blank space where these
particulars could be filled in. The appellants made no inquiries
about
the identity of the purchasers of tickets
nor
about their intentions in
the promotion and conduct of the lotteries for which the appellants
had printed and were distributing tickets.
It
was further held that the lottery referred to in paragraph (b) bore
the same meaning as in paragraph (a), and as there was no evidence
that any particular lottery was promoted or proposed at the time when
the appellants were found to be in possession of stocks of tickets, or
that
they had distributed tickets other than by the sale in June, 1955,
there was no evidence to support the charges made under s.22 (1) (b),
and, accordingly, all three convictions had to be quashed. The
Court
recognised that their decision might provide aloophole through which
those who make the promotion of lotteries easier will escape, but the
fact
that
their interpretation of the statutory words provided an un-
desirable loophole was no reason for ignoring the words of the Act.
On the other hand, it was certainly odd on the face of it that the
prosecution should have succeeded in persuading the magistrate to
make
"an
order to destroy the appellants' whole stock of tickets merely
because they might be used in some lottery to be brought into existence
thereafter
but
which, at the time, was neither promoted
nor
proposed
to be promoted.
Criminal
Law
and
Practice
in
Scotland
ROAD
TRAFFIC
ACT,
1930:
SPECIAL
REASONS
FOR
NOT
IMPOSING
DISQUALIFICA
nON
OUR readers will be familiar with the provisions of the
Road
Traffic Act which empower a
Court
to disqualify the holder
of a driving licence unless there are special reasons to order otherwise.
Once again the question of what are special reasons cropped up in
the case of Robertson v. McGinn (1956, S.L.T. 246). The material
facts were that Robertson, a farmer, had received a tractor on loan
which he knew was not licensed or insured. On one of his own tractors
breaking down he instructed the use of the loaned tractor which was
involved in an accident. He pled guilty to a complaint under section
35 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, in which he was charged with per-
mitting the tractor to be used without a policy of insurance, in respect
of its use, being in force. As special reasons why he should not be
disqualified, he urged that his position was such that he himself could
meet any claim arising out of the accident, and that he required to
To continue reading
Request your trial