Patterson v Howdle
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 12 November 1998 |
| Docket Number | No 11 |
| Date | 12 November 1998 |
| Court | High Court of Justiciary |
JC
LJ-G, Lord MacLean and Lord Marnoch
Evidence—Admissibility—Photographs—Whether photographer required to explain time and circumstances in which photographs taken—Question at issue identification of animal—Whether justices erred in refusing to allow photographs in evidence
The pannel was convicted of a contravention of sec 1 (1) of the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953 in that she was the owner of two dogs which worried sheep by attacking them. The question at trial was in respect of the identity of the dogs in question. One dog had been shot. Photographs had been taken apparently of that dog but no photographer was present to speak to them. The defence sought to put the photographs in evidence. The Crown objected and the justices upheld the Crown's objection. On being convicted the pannel thereafter appealed to the High Court of Justiciary.
Held (1) that although it would frequently be necessary for photographers to give evidence to explain times and circumstances in which particular photographs were taken, where the only issue was the identity of a person or animal shown in the photograph, a witness could speak to the identity even though the photographer was not led; (2) that here a breeder would have been able to give evidence identifying the dogs in question from the photographs so that the justices had been wrong in excluding the photographs from evidence; and (3) that, in the circumstances, the exclusion of the photographs might have affected the conclusion of the justices; and conviction quoad the deceased dog quashed.
Hogg v ClarkSC 1959 JC 7 applied.
Elaine Patterson was charged in the district court at Annan on a complaint at the instance of David J F Howdle, procurator fiscal, Dumfries, the libel of which set forth a contravention of sec 1(1) of the Dogs(Protection of Livestock) Act 1953. The pannel pled not guilty and the cause came to trial before the sheriff. During the course of the evidence certain photographs were sought to be put by the defence to a witness in cross examination. The Crown successfully objected to the admissibility of that evidence.
On being convicted, the pannel appealed to the High Court of Justiciary.
Case referred to:
Hogg v ClarkSC 1959 JC 7
The cause called before the High Court of Justiciary, comprising the Lord Justice-General (Rodger), Lord MacLean and Lord Marnoch for a hearing.
At advising, on 12 November 1998, the opinion of the court was delivered...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Note Of Appeal Against Conviction By Justinas Gubinas And Nerijus Radavicius Against Her Majesty's Advocate
...bound to, and defined by, the testimony given. [11] Real evidence required to be spoken to (Hogg v Clark 1959 JC 7, Patterson v Howdle 1999 JC 56). This was not the same in other jurisdictions, where the fact finders could draw their own conclusions from what could be seen (eg Bryant: Law o......
-
Ellen Elizabeth Anne Brown V. The Yorkhill National Health Service Trust
...later edited to be explained. Only the taker could do that and he or she had not given evidence. Reference was made to Patterson v Howdle 1999 JC 56. In my opinion, however, the failure of the taker of the video to give evidence on these matters did not render the video tape inadmissible as......