HM Advocate v Ritchie
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 09 December 1925 |
| Date | 09 December 1925 |
| Docket Number | No. 11. |
| Court | High Court of Justiciary |
Lord Murray.
Procedure—Trial—Special defences—Abnormal state of mind falling short of insanity—Temporary mental dissociation—Motor-driver running down and killing pedestrian
The driver of a motor car was charged with causing the death of a pedestrian by his reckless driving. He stated the special defence that he was not guilty ‘in respect that by the incidence of temporary mental dissociation due to toxic exhaustive factors he was unaware of the presence of the deceased on the highway and of his injuries and death, and was incapable of appreciating his immediately previous and subsequent actions.’ It was not disputed that the pedestrian's death had been caused by the excessive speed and dangerous manœuvring of the car.
Lord Murray directed the jury that, if the accused was otherwise in a condition which justified his driving a car, and if, through no fault of his own and for some cause outwith his control and which he was not bound to foresee, he became either gradually or suddenly not master of his action through some mental defect, and was in that state at the time of the accident, they were entitled to return a verdict of ‘not guilty.’
The jury found the accused ‘not guilty.’
Thomas Ritchie was charged on an indictment at the instance of His Majesty's Advocate, which set forth, ‘that on 20th October 1925, in Main Street, St Ninians, in the burgh of Stirling, at a part thereof opposite No. 21 of said street, you did drive a motor car in a culpable and reckless manner and at an excessive rate of speed, and did fail to keep a proper look-out and to pay sufficient attention to the safe driving thereof, and did drive said motor car against and knock down Hugh Ewing Welsh, tailor, 6 Main Street, aforesaid, whereby the said Hugh Ewing Welsh was so severely injured that he died there shortly thereafter, and you did thus kill the said Hugh Ewing Welsh.’
The accused was tried in the High Court at Stirling before Lord Murray and a jury on 7th, 8th, and 9th December 1925.
The following special defence was lodged on behalf of the panel: ‘The panel pleads not guilty in respect that by the incidence of temporary mental dissociation due to toxic exhaustive factors he was unaware of the presence of the deceased on the highway and of his injuries and death, and was incapable of appreciating his immediately previous and subsequent actions.’
The following facts were established at the trial:—The accused, who was thirty-one years of age, was a mining engineer employed as their manager by Messrs William Dixon, Limited, coal and iron masters, Glasgow. He had been severely wounded in the war, and had undergone several operations for abscess in the lungs, the last in July 1925. He left hospital on 22nd September and resumed his work, travelling daily between his home, at Coatbridge and Glasgow in his two-seater car. Although able for business he still suffered from high temperatures, weakness, and difficulty in mental concentration. Except for his journeys to and from his business, and two journeys to Stirling and back on 13th and 15th October, the accused had never, since leaving hospital, undertaken any long journey by his car when he was sole driver. On 20th October he left his place of business in Glasgow about 5 p.m., and drove, by himself, to Stirling, a distance of about 30 miles, in order to visit a young lady with whom he was on terms of friendship. On arriving at Stirling shortly after 6 p.m. he had some food and tea, and later a whisky and soda; and about 7.20 p.m. he joined his friend, and started with her in the car for Gleneagles, distant about 18 miles. On arriving at Gleneagles, where they had intended to dance and have supper, they found the hotel closed, and returned to Stirling, reaching the Golden Lion Hotel at about 9.15 p.m., where they had supper, the accused having one glass of sherry after coffee. After supper he took his friend home about 10 o'clock, and immediately thereafter started to return to Coatbridge. The road from Stirling...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R v Quick
...(Mr. James Burge) is reported rs having sub mitted, on the basis of hov; Lord Murray had directed the jury in H.M. Advocate v. Ritchie, (1926) S.C. (J) 45, that:- "Automatism is a defence to a charge of dangerous driving provided that a person takes reasonable steps to prevent himself from ......
-
Ross v HM Advocate
...1963 J.C. 80;Carmichael v. BoyleUNK 1985 S.L.T. 399 and Clark v. H.M. AdvocateSC1968 J.C. 53overruled in part. H.M. Advocate v. Ritchie 1926 J.C. 45approved. Opinion reserved, as to whether automatism was a special defence requiring notice to be given by the accused. Robert Ross was charged......
-
Kim Louise Scarsbrook Or Galbraith V. Her Majesty's Advocate
...But these are merely examples and it is not difficult to give others which might also be relevant. Indeed in H. M. Advocate v. Ritchie 1926 J.C. 45 at p. 49 Lord Murray attempted a brief catalogue of conditions which could affect a person's responsibility: "The most familiar case is where r......
-
Bratty v Attorney-General for Northern Ireland
...was an involuntary act in the sense that he was unconscious at the time and did not know what he was doing, see H.M. Advocate v. Ritchie 1926 S.C. (J) 45, Regina v. Minor (1955) 15 W.L.R. (N.S.) 443 and Cooper v. McKenna, 1960 Queensland Reports 406. 37 Another thing to be observed is that ......
-
Case Comment
...automatism without thewordbeingused: HM Advocate vFraser (1878) 4Couper70; Fain v Commonwealth 78 Ky 183; H MAdvocatevRitchie (1926) JC45; SLT 308; R v StoneandRv Pricecitedin Clanville Williarns, Criminal Law: General Part(1953) London: Stevens & Sons Ltd, p 11, n 4; R vLockhartnotedin Bri......
-
A Long Motor Run on a Dark Night: Reconstructing HM Advocate v Ritchie
...court in Ross v HM Advocate111991 JC 210. reinstated the authority of a decision from more than 60 years' earlier, HM Advocate v Ritchie.221926 JC 45. A key requirement of the defence, as stated by the High Court in Ross, is that the state of automatism must have been caused by a factor ext......
-
Automatism and Mental Disorder in Scots Criminal Law
...Scottish defence of automatism the phrase “did not know” (implying an absence of knowledge) has been used.4444E.g., H M Advocate v Ritchie 1926 JC 45 at 49 per Lord Murray. The courts may not give much significance to this distinction in practice, but from a theoretical point of view, this ......
-
In the Scottish Courts
...distinguishedonthegroundsthatit is simplyprocedural,giventhatinCunninghamtheHighCourtspecifically overruled H.M.Advocatev.Ritchie(1926j.C.45),a caseofcausingdeathbyreckless driving,wheretheaccused wasacquittedafterpleading"temporarymentaldissociationduetotoxicexhaustivefactors",Butif Cunnin......