Reid v Nixon Dumigan v Brown
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 27 January 1948 |
| Date | 27 January 1948 |
| Docket Number | No. 9. |
| Court | High Court of Justiciary |
HIGH COURT. (FULL BENCH.)
Lord Justice-General. Lord Justice-Clerk. Lord Mackay. Lord Carmont. Ld. Jamieson. Lord Russell. Lord Keith.
Statutory Offences—Road Traffic Acts—Driving motor vehicle when under influence of drink or drugs—Evidence—Competency—Medical examination of suspected offender—Duty of police—Police Force—Road Traffic Act, 1930 (20 and 21 Geo. V, cap. 43), sec. 15 (1).
The Road Traffic Act, 1930, enacts: Sec. 15. "(1) Any person who when driving or attempting to drive, or when in charge of, a motor vehicle on a road or other public place is under the influence of drink or a drug to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control of the vehicle, shall be liable [to certain punishments]."
Observations by a Full Bench regarding the procedure to be followed by the police in relation to the medical examination of a person suspected of having committed an offence under these provisions.
Alexander Simpson Reid was charged in the Sheriff Court at Airdrie on a complaint at the instance of Andrew Lambie Nixon, Procurator-fiscal, which set forth, inter alia, an offence under section 15 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930,1 committed when driving a motor car. On 5th May 1947 the Sheriff-substitute (Stevenson) convicted him of this and another offence, and he appealed against the conviction by a bill of suspension to which the Procurator-fiscal lodged answers.
George Dumigan was charged in the Sheriff Court at Kilmarnock on a complaint at the instance of James Brown, Procurator-fiscal, which set forth an offence under the same section, committed when in charge of a motor car. On 12th May 1947 the Sheriff-substitute (Duncan) convicted him, and, at his request stated a case for appeal to the High Court of Justiciary.
Both appellants challenged the propriety of the methods employed by the police in investigating suspected offences under section 15, and, after the cases had been heard before the High Court of Justiciary (consisting of the Lord Justice-General, Lord
Russell and Lord Keith) on 22nd and 23rd October 1947 respectively, they were ordered to be re-heard before a Full Bench.The material facts are set forth in the opening paragraphs of the opinion of the Full Bench (consisting of the Lord Justice-General, the Lord Justice-Clerk, Lord Mackay, Lord Carmont, Lord Jamieson, Lord Russell and Lord Keith).
The cases were heard before the Full Bench on 8th January 1948.
At advising on 27th January 1948 the opinion of the Court was read by,—
LORD JUSTICE-GENERAL (Cooper).—In these cases a challenge has been directed against the propriety of the methods employed by the police in investigating suspected contraventions of section 15 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930,13 and we have had the advantage of a debate before a Full Court.
The facts so far as material to the wider issue are these: InReid v. Nixon two police constables called at the complainer's residence about 4.5 a.m., some five or ten minutes after he had arrived home. He had evidently retired, and, when seen by the police, was wearing pyjamas and a dressing-gown. The police asked the complainer to accompany them to the police station for the purpose of being medically...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Forrester v H. M. Advocate
...the panel's consent and under conditions which, in other respects also, did not comply with the procedure laid down in Reid v. Nixon, 1948 J. C. 68.The objection was repelled, and the panel was convicted. Held, distinguishingReid v. Nixon,that the observations of the Court in that case were......
-
Sullivan v Robinson
...any test the result of which tends to incriminate him was voluntarily undergone So held by Davitt P. Reid v. Nixon. Dumigan v. BrownSC 1948 J.C. 68 approved. (H.C., S.C.) Sullivan and Robinson Supreme Court - Appellate jurisdiction from "all decisions" of the High Court - Appeal by complain......
-
Gallacher v H. M. Advocate
...was evidence that the driver was under the influence of drink or drugs, the conviction under that charge should stand. Reid v. Nixon, 1948 J. C. 68, applied. Dunstan Edward Gallacher was charged on indictment at the instance of Her Majesty's Advocate that on 18th June 1962 on the Stirling t......
-
Seaton v Allan
...v. TormeyUNK, [1969] 1 All E.R. 916,R. v. WallUNK, [1969] 1 All E.R. 968, Sasson v. TavernerUNK, [1970] 1 All E.R. 215, Reid v. DixonSC, 1948 J.C. 68, Morrison v. BurrellSC,1947 J.C. 43, H.M. Advocate v. RiggSCENR, 1946 J.C. 3, Bell, 1945 J.C. 61). Mr. Balfour maintained that the breath tes......