Hunter v Herron. Carberry v Irvine. Browning v Farrell
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 16 May 1969 |
| Date | 16 May 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 12. |
| Court | High Court of Justiciary |
High Court.
Lord Justice-General. Lord Guthrie. Lord Migdale.
Evidence—Proof of official documents—Proof of matters contained therein—Summary prosecution—Copy of letter from Scottish Office certified by authorised person—Summary Jurisdiction (Scotland) Act, 1954 (2 and 3 Eliz. II, cap. 48), sec. 35 (1).
The Summary Jurisdiction (Scotland) Act, 1954, enacts by sec. 35:—"(1) Any letter … issuing from the office … of any of the departments of state or government in the United Kingdom the production of which in evidence is required in any summary prosecution … shall, when produced, be received as prima facie evidence of the matters contained in it without being produced or sworn to by any witness, and a copy thereof bearing to be certified by any person having authority to certify the same shall be treated as equivalent to the original …"
Following a breath test the driver of a motor vehicle was arrested, required to give a blood specimen and, as a result of an analysis of the specimen, convicted of a contravention of sec. 1 (1) of the Road Safety Act, 1967. To justify this procedure it was necessary under secs. 2 (1) and 7 (1) of that Act that the device used for the breath test should have been approved by the Secretary of State. The prosecutor produced a copy of a letter of approval of the device used, addressed to the manufacturers by the Secretary of State, issued from the Scottish Home and Health Department and bearing to be certified a true copy by an official of the Department having authority to certify.
Held that the copy letter satisfied all the requirements of sec. 35 (1) of the 1954 Act, that no publication of the letter was necessary, and therefore that the Sheriff-substitute was entitled to hold that the device had been approved by the Secretary of State.
Summary Procedure—Conduct of trial—Minute of proceedings—Failure to note documentary evidence—Summary Jurisdiction (Scotland) Act, 1954 (2 and 3 Eliz. II, cap. 48), sec. 38.
-
Sec. 38 of the Summary Jurisdiction (Scotland) Act, 1954, provides that in a summary prosecution no record need be kept of the proceedings other than, inter alia, "a note of any documentary evidence produced."
-
In a summary prosecution a fact essential to a conviction was proved by a certified copy letter. The copy letter was not noted in the record of the proceedings, but in an appeal it appeared from the stated case that it had been produced by the procurator-fiscal.
-
Held that, as it appeared from the stated case that the copy letter had been produced at the trial, the failure to note it in the record did not render the proceedings null.
-
Winslow v. Farrell, 1965 J. C. 49,distinguished.
Hunter v. Herron.
Allan Douglas Hunter was charged in the Sheriff Court at Glasgow on a complaint at the instance of Henry Herron, Procurator-fiscal, which set forth that "on 20th July 1968, on roads or other public places, namely Bath Street, Hope Street and Sauchiehall Street, all in Glasgow, you did drive a motor vehicle, namely motor car registered number LGA 613E, having consumed alcohol in such a quantity that the proportion thereof in your blood, as ascertained from a laboratory test for which you subsequently provided a specimen under section 3 of the aftermentioned Act, was 170 milligrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood, which exceeded 80 milligrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood, the prescribed limit at the time you provided the specimen: Contrary to section 1 (1) of the Road Safety Act, 1967."
The accused pled not guilty, but on 15th January 1969, after trial, he was found guilty as libelled. At his request the Sheriff-substitute (M'Neill) stated a case for the opinion of the High Court of Justiciary.
The case set forth that the following facts were admitted or proved:—"(1) On 20th July 1968 the appellant was driving his motor car registered number LGA 613E in Hope Street, Bath Street and Sauchiehall Street in Glasgow. (2) He was stopped by two police officers in uniform. (3) The officers were of the opinion that the appellant had been drinking. (4) The police officers administered a breath test to the appellant at the locus and this gave a positive reaction. (5) He was arrested and taken to the Central Police Office, where another test was administered to the appellant and this also gave a positive reaction. (6) The appellant gave a blood specimen, which, when analysed, disclosed a blood-alcohol content of 170 milligrammes of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood. (7) A device of the same type as was used to take each of the breath tests mentioned in findings (4) and (5) hereof was produced in Court. (8) This is called the “Alcotest” device … (11) The fact that the “Alcotest” device was one of a type approved by the Secretary of State was evidenced by the copy letter of 29th June 1967 (Production No. 3)."1
The case further set forth:—"The only...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Knox v O'Brien
...v. McConnel 1917 J.C. 43; Scott v. BakerELR [1969] 1 Q.B. 659; R. v. Jones (Reginald)UNK [1969] 3 All E.R. 1559; Hunter v. HerronSC1969 J.C. 64; McKay v. MacleodUNK 1970 S.L.T. 29; Mcllhargey v. Herron 1972 J.C. 38; Lee v. SmithUNK 1982 S.L.T. 200; Annan v. MitchellUNK 1984 S.C.C.R. 32 dist......