MacLeod v Levitt
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 06 December 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 4. |
| Date | 06 December 1968 |
| Court | High Court of Justiciary |
HIGH COURT.
Lord Justice-General. Lord Guthrie. Lord Cameron.
Review—Advocation—Competency—Advocation of interlocutor removing disqualification for holding driving licence—Road Traffic Act, 1960 (8 and 9 Eliz. II, cap. 16), sec. 106 (1).
The Road Traffic Act, 1960, provides, by sec. 106 (1), that any person who by an order of a Court is disqualified for holding or obtaining a driving licence may apply to the Court by which the order was made to remove the disqualification.
A Sheriff-substitute having granted an application for removal of disqualification for holding a licence, the procurator-fiscal presented a bill of advocation in which he prayed the Court, inter alia,to recall the Sheriff-substitute's interlocutor.
Held that advocation was competent only for the purpose of reviewing decisions in the preliminary stages of a prosecution and that the bill was incompetent in respect (1) that the process before the Sheriff-substitute was not a prosecution, but was of an administrative character, and (2) that his interlocutor was not preliminary, but final; and order for service refused.
Angus MacLeod, Procurator-fiscal, Edinburgh, presented a bill of advocation to the High Court of Justiciary.
The following narrative of the circumstances is taken from the opinion of the Lord Justice-General:—"This is a bill of advocation brought at the instance of the Procurator-fiscal against a Mr Levitt. It comes before us for an order for service. The matter originated in a complaint at the instance of the Procurator-fiscal charging Mr Levitt with a series of contraventions of the Road Traffic Act, 1960. Mr Levitt pled guilty, and on 6th January 1965 he was, inter alia,disqualified from driving for two years on the first charge and for five years on the second charge (to commence on the expiry of the two years' disqualification) and he was also disqualified for a further six months under section 5 (3) of the Road Traffic Act, 1962. The cumulo disqualification thus amounted to 7½ years.
"Under section 106 (1) of the 1960 Act it is provided that, subject to the provisions of the section, a person who by an order of a Court is disqualified for holding or obtaining a licence may apply to the Court by which the order was made to remove the disqualification, and on any such application the Court may, as it thinks proper, having regard to the character of the person disqualified and his conduct subsequent to the order, the nature of the offence, and any other circumstances of the case, either by order remove the disqualification as from such date as may be specified in the order, or refuse the application. Subsection (2) of section 106 specifies the periods which must expire before an application for removal of a disqualification may be made, and under section 6 (1) of the 1962 Act new periods are provided in substitution for those set out in section 106 (2) of the earlier Act.
"Mr Levitt has presented a petition to the Sheriff Court under section 106, as amended, and the application was heard by the Court on 22nd October 1968. A dispute arose as to whether the necessary period or periods of disqualification had expired, so as to entitle Mr Levitt to invoke the sections in question or whether the application was premature. On a construction of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Procurator Fiscal Paisley V. A K+a R
...history, coming in and out of fashion from time to time. Its exact scope has also been the subject of some controversy. In McLean v Levitt 1969 JC 16 it was described as a procedure which was "out of date" per Lord Justice General Clyde at page 18. The Thomson Committee in its third report ......
-
David John Calder V. Her Majesty's Advocate
...the sheriff's decision. The sheriff's decision was a final disposal of the section 15 application. Reference was made to MacLeod v Levitt 1969 JC 16, in which Lord Cameron said (at 19): "The limited sphere of competence of the process of advocation lies in the correction of irregularities i......
-
Bill Of Suspension By Jq Against Procurator Fiscal, Paisley
...criminal but administrative. They play no part in them. A Bill of Suspension is therefore an incompetent mode of review (MacLeod v Levitt 1969 JC 16). [7] The High Court’s powers at common law are those of “reviewing, in the widest sense of the word, the proceedings of all the inferior cour......
-
Hm Advocate v Thomson
...extent superseded the earlier practice as to whether or not a bill of advocation would be regarded as competent. In MacLeod v. LevittSC 1969 J.C. 16 at p. 18 Lord Justice-General Clyde said that the very limited sphere in which this procedure could now be invoked was accurately summed up in......