Harrison v Hill
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 22 October 1931 |
| Docket Number | No.3. |
| Date | 22 October 1931 |
| Court | High Court of Justiciary |
Lord Justice. General. Lord Sands. Lord Blackburn.
HIGH COURT.
Statutory Offences—Motor Car Acts—Driving motor vehicle on a road while disqualified for licence— "Road to which the public has access"mdash;Private approach to farm used by members of the public—Roads and Streets—Road Traffic Act, 1930 (20 and 21 Geo. V. capENR. 43), secs. 7 (4) and 121 (1).
The Road Traffic Act, 1930, by sec. 7 (4), renders liable to certain penalties any person who, while disqualified under the provisions of Part I. of the Act for holding a driving licence, drives a motor vehicle on a "road." Sec. 121 (1) of the Act defines "road" as "any highway and any other road to which the public has access…"
The driver of a motor vehicle was convicted of an offence under sec. 7 (4) of the Act, on the ground that, while disqualified for holding a driving licence, he had driven his vehicle on a road forming the access from a public highway to a farm. The road in question was part of the farm and led only to the farmhouse, where it terminated.
It had no other houses upon it, and it was not maintained by any public authority but was maintained by the farm tenant in terms of his lease. There was no gate at the entrance to it, and no intimation that it was not open to the public; and, except at times in summer, when the farmer placed a pole across it to prevent the straying of cattle which were grazing in the adjoining fields, there was no obstacle to prevent the public having access to it. The road was used by the public as an access to the farm, and members of the public not having business there also frequently walked on it. They had, on several occasions, been turned off by the farmer when there were growing crops in the adjoining fields.Held, on appeal, that the road was a road to which the public had access within the meaning of sec. 121 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, 1930; and conviction sustained.
David Harrison, 26 Campbell Street, Johnstone, was charged in the Sheriff Court of Renfrew and Bute at Paisley, at the instance of John Hill, Procurator-fiscal, Paisley, on a complaint which set forth that the accused, while disqualified under the provisions of Part I. of the Road Traffic Act, 1930,1 for holding a driving licence, "did, on 28th January 1931, on the road leading from Drygate Road to Auchenames Farm, occupied by Robert Middlemas, in the Parish of Kilbarchan, drive a motor vehicle contrary to section 7 (4) of said Act." The accused pleaded not guilty.
The Sheriff-substitute (Hamilton), after evidence had been led, convicted the accused, and, at his request, stated a case for appeal to the High Court of Justiciary.
The case set forth that the following facts were admitted or proved:— "(1) The appellant was convicted in the Sheriff Court, Paisley, on 29th December 1930, of a contravention of section 15 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, and was sentenced to pay a fine of £25(payable within fourteen days from that date) or sixty days” imprisonment, and was disqualified under the provisions of Part I. of said Road Traffic Act, 1930, for a period of twelve months from that date for holding or...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
- Adams v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis
- Buchanan v Motor Insurers' Bureau
-
Stanbridge v Healy
...at large did not have access to the place where the accident happened, and that it was not therefore a 'public place': Harrisonv. Hill 1932 SC (J) 13 applied. 2. That 'public' means the public generally and not any particular class of the public. ...
- R v Shaw (Charles)
-
Divisional Court
...since itis difficult to talk of 'principles' upon which 'questions of fact and degree'must be determined.In Harrison v Hill [1932] SC(J) 13, the Scottish court stated that a roadorotherpublic place is one to which the public, in the sense of the publicgenerally, has access lawfully, so that......
-
“Lawful and Unlawful Obstruction of Public Roads”
...be so used " is guiltyof an offence, and by Section 113 the owner or other person1Bryant e, Marx (1932), 96J.P.383.IHarrison e. Hill (1932), S.C. (J.) 13. 446THEPOLICE JOURNALmust, when required by or on behalf of a chief officer ofpolice, give such information as will trace the identity of......