Quinn v Cunningham
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 02 December 1955 |
| Docket Number | No. 6. |
| Date | 02 December 1955 |
| Court | High Court of Justiciary |
HIGH COURT.
Lord Justice-General. Lord Carmont. Lord Sorn.
Crimes—Riding pedal cycle in reckless manner and causing injury to pedestrian—Whether crime at common law.
An accused was charged on a summary complaint, brought at common law, with riding a pedal cycle in a reckless manner and causing it to collide with a pedestrian and injure both parties.
Held (dub. Lord Sorn) that, as the recklessness libelled in the complaint was not specified as being "to the danger of the lieges," the complaint was irrelevant, since the lower degree of recklessness libelled was not a crime at common law.
Daniel Dermott Quinn was charged in the Police Court at Blairgowrie on a summary complaint at the instance of James Ian Cunningham, Burgh Prosecutor, which set forth that "you did, about 6.15 p.m. on Tuesday, 2nd August 1955, at Wellmeadow, Blairgowrie…ride a pedal cycle in a reckless manner and did cause it to collide with and knock down Francis Conway…whereby both sustained slight injuries."
On 5th September 1955, after evidence had been led, the magistrate convicted the accused. At the accused's request he stated a case for appeal to the High Court of Justiciary.
The case set forth that the following facts were admitted or found proved:—"(1) On the date and at the time and place libelled, three pedestrians, Francis Conway, James Dunnigan and Walter Burgess, were crossing the roadway, keeping together, and having first ensured that there was no sign of approaching traffic. (2) When the said three pedestrians were approximately one yard from the pavement for which they were making, Conway was knocked down by a pedal cycle. (3) The appellant was the rider of the pedal cycle. (4) Adjacent to the locus, in the direction from which the appellant approached, there was a blind corner. (5) The roadway beyond the corner inclined steeply downwards towards the locus. (6) The appellant was travelling fast. (7) The brakes on the appellant's cycle were in good working order. (8) There was no other traffic in the vicinity at the time of the collision. (9) The appellant was duly warned and charged with the offence libelled."
The case further stated:—"In the course of the trial no evidence was taken from the appellant and no witnesses were called on his behalf. The appellant's agent, after the evidence had been led for the prosecution, objected to the relevancy of the complaint on the contention that the cause should properly have been brought under the Road Traffic Acts, or with reference to the Highway Code. I repelled the objection."
The questions of law for the opinion of the Court were:—"(1) Was I right in repelling the objection to the relevancy of the complaint? (2) Upon the foregoing facts found proved, was I entitled to find the appellant guilty?"
The case was heard before the High Court of Justiciary on 25th November 1955.
At advising on 2nd December 1955,—
LORD JUSTICE-GENERAL (Clyde).—This stated case arises out of a complaint in unprecedented terms...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
HM Advocate v Harris
...and that, asex hypothesi the alternative charge did not contain a charge of assault, it could not be relevant. Quinn v. CunninghamSC 1956 J.C. 22 overruled. Andrew Harris was charged on an indictment raised at the instance of the Rt. Hon. The Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Q.C., Her Majesty's A......
-
Cameron v Maguire
...if the presence in the vicinity of either or both of the public road and other habitations were to be disregarded. Quinn v CunninghamSC 1956 JC 22 applied;Gizzi v TudhopeUNK 1982 SCCR 442 doubted. Allan Gordon Cameron was charged in the sheriffdom of Grampian Highland and Islands at Oban on......
-
Transco Plc V. Her Majesty's Advocate
...features of the definition "gross or wicked ... indifference to consequences" appear to me to be more helpful. In Quinn v Cunningham 1956 J.C. 22, the court considered a complaint of culpable and reckless conduct, not resulting in death, but the case contains certain observations by Lord Ju......
-
Transco Plc v HM Advocate
...LtdUNK (1991) 93 Cr App R 72 Paton v HM AdvocateSC 1936 JC 19 Purcell Meats (Scotland) Ltd v McLeod 1987 SLT 528 Quinn v CunninghamSC 1956 JC 22 R v AdomakoELR [1995] 1 AC 171 R v BatemanUNK (1925) 19 Crim App R 8 R v Coroner (HM) for East Kent, ex p Spooner and othersUNK (1989) 88 Cr App R......