In the Scottish Courts
| Published date | 01 July 1944 |
| DOI | 10.1177/002201834400800305 |
| Date | 01 July 1944 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
In the Scottish Courts
AMBIGUITY
IN
ACOMPLAINT
Pollok v. Robertson
A,
B,
and
C were charged, before a
lay
magistrate in
the
Eastern
Police Court, Glasgow, with certain contra-
ventions of one of
the
local police acts.
The
complaint
formulated
the
charge as follows: ', You, A, being
the
secretary
and
asubscriber of
the
Parkhead
Club
Ltd.
at
(an address in Glasgow)
and
the
secretary of
the
Lanark-
shire H. Company Ltd. of (an address in Hamilton)
and
you, B, being adirector of
the
said
Parkhead
Club
and
you, C, being
the
person in charge of said
Parkhead
Club,
did, between (dates stated) keep, use or suffer to be
kept
or used abuilding or
part
of a building known as "
The
Parkhead
Club"
at
(the Glasgow address),
the
said building
not
being licensed as a hotel, for
the
purpose of public
billiard playing without having obtained a licence from
the
Magistrates' Committee of
the
Corporation of
the
City
of Glasgow so to
do;
contrary
to
.....
"
. On
the
first calling of
the
case, C pled guilty
and
was fined. A
and
Bpled
not
guilty
but
were, on a
later
date, convicted on evidence. Against this conviction
they
successfully appealed.
The sole ground of
the
quashing of
the
convictions
secured against A
and
Bwas
that
the
prosecutor
had
failed to make
it
clear whether he was charging
them
(1)
as
individuals or
(2)
as officers of,
and
as such representing,
alimited company or a club.
In
the
latter
event, he should
have
been guided by
the
directions given in section 28 of
the
Summary
Jurisdiction (Scotland) Act, 1908,
and
should
have
so worded his complaint as to make
it
clear
that
he
was bringing A
and
Bto court in a representative capacity.
Where aprosecutor
had
failed to make
the
position clear,
prejudice
must
follow. A conviction following upon such
acomplaint could
not
be allowed to stand.
203
To continue reading
Request your trial