Quarterly Summary
| Published date | 01 April 1956 |
| Date | 01 April 1956 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/002201835602000210 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
Quarterly Summary
(Extended reports
of
some
of
the
cases
here summarised
will begiven in
OUT
next issue.-Editor)
"IN
CHARGE"
OF CAR
WHEN
KEYS HANDED TO
FRIEND
R. v. Short
A
jury
at the Central Criminal Court held that amotorist
who had handed the ignition key of his car to a friend was still
in charge of the vehicle and found him guilty of being in
charge when
under
the influence of drink. He was seen by a
police officer slumped in his car driving seat and it
turned
out
that at some time earlier in the evening he had taken
the
wise
precaution of handing his key to a friend.
In
summing up, the
Lord
Chief Justice said
that
it was a case in which the
magistrate had decided that it was a matter for an authoritative
decision. "Curiously enough, for a long time there seems to
have been abroad the idea that the question of whether or not
aman is in charge of a car is a matter of law.
It
seems to me
it is entirely aquestion of fact", said the
Lord
Chief Justice.
"And
questions of fact have to be resolved by a jury.
Somebody
must
be in charge of a car when it is on the road
unless it has been abandoned
altogether"
(qth December,
1955)·
UNFAITHFULNESS
NOT
PROVOCATION
R. v.
Nuttall
In
dismissing an appeal against conviction of
murder
of
his wife the Court of Criminal Appeal said that there was
really no question of the appellant's having been provoked so
as to reduce the crime to manslaughter, having regard to
the
direction of the House of Lords in Holmes v. D.P.P. (1946
A.C. 597).
If
the trial judge had refused to allow the issue to
go to the
jury
the
Court
would not have interfered.
The
Court
said
that
it was about time
that
husbands
and
people
learnt
that
mere unfaithfulness by a wife, particularly when
she was living
apart
from her husband, was not a ground for
saying
that
there was sufficient provocation to reduce
murder
To continue reading
Request your trial