In the Scottish Courts
| DOI | 10.1177/002201836002400107 |
| Published date | 01 January 1960 |
| Date | 01 January 1960 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
In the Scottish Courts
ROAD TRAFFIC
ACTS-IN
CHARGE OF VEHICLE
Farrell v. Campbell (1959,
S.L.T.
(Sh. Ct. Reports) 43)
PRI OR to 1956 a person who was found drunk in charge of
amotor vehicle as distinct from driving it was charged
under
section 15 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, a sectionwhich
embraced both offences. Section 9 of the Road Traffic Act
1956, deals with
the
specific offence of being drunk in charge
of a motor-car. Possibly because of Judicial Decisions to
which we shall refer in a moment, aproviso was added to
the
effect
that
aperson was not to be deemed in charge of a car if
he could show
(I)
that
at the material time
the
circumstances
were such
that
there was no likelihood of his driving so long as
he remained unfit to drive, and (2)
that
between his becoming
unfit to drive and
the
material time he had not driven
the
vehicle on a road.
Our
readers may remember
the
cases. Crichton v. Burrell
(1951,
S.L.T.
365).
In
that
case
the
driver had telephoned for
an employee to take him home,
but
was found by the police
standing beside his car with
the
ignition key in his possession.
He
successfully appealed against his conviction.
In
Dean v.
Wishart (1952,
S.L.T.
86; 16
J.CL.
76)
the
conviction was
again quashed.
That
was
the
case where
the
owner of
the
car,
because of his drunken condition, was taken by friends, placed
in
the
back seat of the car, and
the
car immobilised. Winter v.
Morrison (1954,J.C. 7) was the case where
the
police found
the
owner in
the
front passenger seat. His wife was in
the
driver's
seat with
the
engine running apparently on
the
point of driving
off. She had held a Provisional Licence which had expired.
Again on appeal the conviction was upset.
In
the
light of these decisions one wonders why proceed-
ings were instituted in the present case and it is not surprising
that
the
Sheriff refused to convict.
It
appears from the facts
given by the Sheriff in his judgment
that
on the day in question
the
accused had borrowed a car. He visited anumber of public
houses and undoubtedly had a lot of drink.
On
leaving
the
last
47
To continue reading
Request your trial