Low v Rankine
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 14 May 1917 |
| Docket Number | No. 11. |
| Date | 14 May 1917 |
| Court | High Court of Justiciary |
Lord Justice-General, Lord Skerrington, Ld. Anderson.
Review—Suspension—Mora—Acquiescence—Fine imposed and paid—Bill of suspension presented four months after fine paid.
Three men were charged on a summary complaint with theft. Two of them pleaded guilty and were sentenced. The third pleaded not guilty, but after a trial was convicted and fined. The fine was paid at the bar. Four months afterwards he brought a bill of suspension, in which he took exception to the conviction on the ground of irregularity in the designation of the prosecutor in the instance, insufficiency of evidence, and illegality in convicting him on the evidence of his socii criminis.
Held that, in the circumstances, the complainer was barred by delay from insisting in the suspension; and bill refused.
On 30th November 1916 Allan Low, signalman, Glencairn, High Bonnybridge, and two others, were charged in the Police Court of the Burgh of Denny and Dunipace, at Denny, with stealing a quart bottle of whisky, on a summary complaint which bore to be at the instance of ‘John Douglas Sempill, burgh prosecutor.’
The two accused other than Allan Low pleaded guilty. Allan Low pleaded not guilty, and, on 18th December 1916, after trial, was convicted and sentenced to a fine of twenty shillings, and, in default of payment, to seven days' imprisonment. He paid the fine at the bar.
On 20th April 1917 he presented a bill of suspension, calling as respondent James Rankine, whom he described as ‘Interim Burgh Prosecutor.’
In the bill of suspension, the complainer averred, inter alia;—‘(1) … While the said complaint was de facto at the instance of the respondent acting as interim burgh prosecutor foresaid, the complaint was stated to be that of John Douglas Sempill, burgh prosecutor, and the complaint was signed by the said John Douglas Sempill. The complaint was accordingly irregular and incompetent, since the respondent, while himself holding a delegated appointment, could not delegate his authority to another. The complaint was irregular and incompetent in respect that it does not show that the respondent was the complainer, and in respect that the complaint should have proceeded in his name and been signed by him. … (4) The only evidence adduced of actual theft by the complainer was the testimony of the two men, Law and Liddell, who had already been convicted as aforesaid, and the said Magistrates proceeded entirely upon their evidence in convicting the complainer. Other witnesses were adduced by the respondent regarding the finding of the whisky and as to other matters, but this additional evidence was not directed towards establishing guilt against the complainer, and did not either in fact, or in the opinion of the Magistrates, bring home to him any connexion with the alleged crime. The complainer was not guilty of the said theft. (5) The said conviction of the complainer was illegal and oppressive. It was illegal to convict him on the unsupported testimony of these two witnesses who had confessed to, and been convicted of, the said crime; and in any event, their evidence, unsupported as it was by corroborative testimony, was not sufficient in law to justify a conviction. It was, further, incompetent for the prosecutor to adduce as witnesses against the complainer these two men who had...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
MARTIN ROBERTSON v K FRAME (Procurator Fiscal, Aberdeen)
...1945 JC 83; 1945 SLT 202 Law and Nicol v HM Advocate 1973 SLT (Notes) 14 Lochridge v MillerUNK 2002 SLT 906; 2002 SCCR 628 Low v Rankine 1917 JC 39; 1917 1 SLT 292 McFadyen v AnnanSCUNK 1992 JC 53; 1992 SLT 163; 1992 SCCR 186 Maclellan v Miller (1832) 11 S 187 Millar v DicksonUNKSCUNKWLRUNK......
-
Martin Robertson And Seamus O'dalaigh+kevin Ruddy V. Procurator Fiscal Aberdeen+procurator Fiscal Perth
...Where the objection to the conviction or sentence was based on a matter of law the court might allow greater latitude (see Low v. Rankine 1917 J.C. 39). [23]More recently it was held in Storie v. Friel 1993 S.C.C.R. 955 and Cassidy v. Friel 1995 S.L.T. 391 that the challenging of a sentence......
-
Ruddy v Procurator Fiscal, Perth
...Advocate 1973 SLT (Notes) 14 Lochridge v MillerUNK 2002 SLT 906; 2002 SCCR 628 Love v WilsonUNK 1993 SLT 948; 1993 SCCR 325 Low v Rankine 1917 JC 39; 1917 1 SLT 292 McClure v Douglas (1872) 2 Coup 177 Millar v DicksonUNKSCUNKWLRUNKSCUNK [2001] UKPC D4; 2002 SC (PC) 30; 2001 SLT 988; 2001 SC......
-
Kevin Ruddy and Others v Procurator Fiscal, Perth and Another
...were in breach of the accused's Convention rights may be lost if it is not exercised timeously. Lord Anderson's comment in Low v Rankine, 1917 JC 39, 41-42, that it is the duty of a person who is of opinion that he was unjustly convicted to seek a remedy as expeditiously as possible and tha......