In the Scottish Courts
| Published date | 01 October 1955 |
| Date | 01 October 1955 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/002201835501900406 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
In the Scottish Courts
"ART
AND
PART"
IN A STATUTORY OFFENCE
Webster and anr. v. Wishart (1955
SL.T.
243)
INthis case,
the
High Court of Justiciary declined to accept
the
broad proposition submitted by
the
Solicitor General
for
the
Crown
that
where persons are engaged in a criminal
enterprise and make their escape from the scene of
the
crime
by car every occupant of the car becomes liable for such
breaches of the Road Traffic Acts as
the
driver may commit.
That,
in
the
court's opinion, was
"too
wide a proposition".
The
appeal arose
out
of proceedings instituted in
the
Sheriff Court at Elgin, where the Procurator Fiscal tabled a
complaint charging two men first that, on a date libelled,
about 7
.25
p.m., at a distillery in Morayshire, they did steal
seven hundredweights of
coal-which
coal they loaded on to a
motor truck belonging to one of them and so removed it
and
which truck had been driven to
the
distillery for
the
purpose
of committing the theft and facilitating
the
speedy removal of
the
coal without detection, and second that, about 7.35 p.rn.
on the same date, on the Elgin-Rothes Road, they did drive
the
truck, then laden with
the
stolen coal, recklessly
and
at a
speed and in a manner dangerous to the public, whereby it
came into collision with amotor-car and thereafter with a
motor-cycle, causing damage to both the car and
the
cycle
and
severe injuries to
the
driver of the latter, in contravention
of section
II
(I) of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, as construed
along with section 31 of
the
Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act,
1949. A plea of not guilty to both charges was tendered but,
after hearing evidence, the sheriff convicted of both.
The
point seized upon in
the
appeal against conviction of
the
second charge was
that
no evidence had been led in
the
court
below to show which of
the
two men was driving
the
truck at
the
time of
the
collisions.
In
this state of affairs, it was contended on behalf of
the
appellants
that
"there
was not enough evidence to convict
because one did not really know anything about
the
situation.
333
To continue reading
Request your trial