Seaton v Allan
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 01 June 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 6. |
| Date | 01 June 1973 |
| Court | High Court of Justiciary |
JC
L. J.-C. Wheatley, Lords Kissen, Fraser.
Statutory Offences—Road Traffic Acts—Driving motor vehicle while proportion of alcohol in blood exceeds prescribed limit—Arrest—Validity of arrest—Road Traffic Act, 1960 (8 and 9 Eliz. II, cap. 16), sec. 6 (4)—Road Safety Act, 1967 (cap. 30), secs. 1 (1) and 3 (1).
Summary procedure—Sentence—Conviction of more than one statutory offence—Form of sentence.
-
Sec. 1 (1) of the Road Safety Act, 1967, provides that if a person drives or attempts to drive a motor vehicle on a road or public place, having consumed alcohol in such a quantity that the proportion thereof in his blood, as ascertained from a laboratory test for which he subsequently provides a specimen under sec. 3 of the Act, exceeds the prescribed limit at the time he provides the specimen, he shall be liable on conviction to certain penalties. Sec. 3 (1) of the Act provides that in the circumstances therein described a person arrested under sec. 2 of the Act or under sec. 6 (4) of the Road Traffic Act, 1960 may be required by a constable to provide a specimen for a laboratory test. Sec. 6 (4) of the said Act of 1960 provides: "A police constable may arrest without warrant a person committing an offence under this section." Sec. 6 (1) of the said Act of 1960 provides that driving or attempting to drive a motor vehicle while unfit to drive through drink or drugs is an offence.
-
A motor car driven by the accused was in collision with another car on a public road. The occupants of the other car smelt alcohol on the accused's breath and so informed the police when they reported the accident some ten minutes later. About 20 to 25 minutes after the accident two uniformed police officers called at a farm cottage where they interviewed the accused. The accused had consumed alcohol since the accident. He smelt strongly of alcohol. The police officers made no enquiries about his consumption of alcohol after the accident, but required him to provide a sample of breath which proved positive. Thereafter he was arrested under sec. 2 (4) of the Road Safety Act, 1967 and sec. 6 (4) of the Road Traffic Act, 1960, and was subsequently charged with a contravention of sec. 1 (1) of the Road Safety Act, 1967; and of sec. 3 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, 1960, which relates to careless or inconsiderate driving. At his trial he was convicted on both charges, the Sheriff holding that the purported arrest under the said sec. 2 (4) was unlawful, but that the accused had been lawfully arrested under the said sec. 6 (4). For reasons of administrative convenience the accused was admonished on the charge under the said sec. 3 (1), and a monetary penalty was imposed only in respect of the charge under the said sec. 1 (1).
-
Held that the purported arrest under the said sec. 6 (4) was invalid, since the arresting officer's belief that a contravention of sec. 6 (1) of the said Act of 1960 had occurred was based upon information received from others and not upon his own observations; and conviction under sec. 1 (1) quashed.
-
Wiltshire v. BarrettELR, [1966] 1 Q.B. 312, andR. v. WayUNK, [1970] R.T.R. 348, followed.
-
Observed that in cases where more than one statutory offence is libelled it is desirable that on conviction the court should impose a sentence on each of the charges.
Stanley James Seaton was charged in the Sheriff Court at Duns on a complaint at the instance of Charles Baird Allan, Procurator-fiscal, which set forth that "on 6th May 1972, on a road, or other public place, namely on the Gordon to Corsbie road, near to its junction with the Gordon to Lauder road, Parish of Legerwood, Berwickshire, you did drive a motor vehicle namely a motor van, without due care and attention and without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road, and said vehicle collided with a motor car then driven on said road by Robert Redpath Dodds, 5 Mellerstain Village, Gordon, Berwickshire, and both vehicles were damaged: Contrary to the Road Traffic Act, 1960, Section 3 (1). You did drive a motor vehicle, namely said motor van, having consumed alcohol in such a quantity that the proportion thereof in your blood, as ascertained from a laboratory test for which you subsequently provided a specimen under Section 3 of the aftermentioned Act, was 241 milligrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood, which exceeded 80 milligrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood, the prescribed limit at the time you provided the specimen: Contrary to Section 1 (1) of the Road Safety Act, 1967:"
The accused pled not guilty.
After trial the Sheriff found the accused guilty on both charges. At the request of the accused he stated a case for the opinion of the High Court of Justiciary.
The case set forth that the following facts were admitted or proved.—"(1) About 10.15 p.m. on 6 May 1972 Mr. Dodds, accompanied by his wife and daughter, was driving his car from Legerwood to Gordon on the Corsbie road. (2) That road is narrow (about 12 feet wide) and twisting. (3) About 500 yards from the junction of that road with the main Carfraemill to Gordon road Mr. Dodds noticed a car coming towards him. (4) As Mr. Dodds was approaching a bend, and as the road was narrow, he drew well into his own side of the road, mounted the verge and slowly brought his car to a halt. (5) The other car came on, swerved onto the crown of the road, hit Mr. Dodds' car and stopped about 30 yards further along the road. (6) Mr. and Mrs. Dodds got out of their car. (7) The appellant got out of the driving seat of the other car and came back along the road and spoke to Mr. and Mrs. Dodds. He was accompanied by another man. (8) The appellant was unsteady on his feet, his speech was slurred and his breath smelt of alcohol. (9) About 10.25 p.m. Mr. Dodds drove into Gordon and spoke to two police officers who were in uniform, on duty, in a police van. (10) Mr. Dodds told the police officers about the accident, named the appellant as the driver of the other car involved, and told them of the appellant's condition. (11) Between 10.35 and 10.40 those two police officers arrived at a cottage at Corsbie farm. That farm is approximately 3/4 of a mile from the locus of the accident and approximately 2 1/2 miles from Gordon. (12) The police officers knocked on the door of that cottage. The door was opened by a Mrs. Russell. The police officers asked to speak to the appellant. (13) The appellant came to the door of the cottage. He was not carrying any drink but his breath smelt strongly of alcohol. (14) The police officers informed the appellant that they had reason to believe that he was the driver of a car which had shortly before been in collision with another vehicle on the Corsbie road and that they required him to provide a sample of breath. (15) The appellant agreed to provide such a sample. The sample was taken with an approved device about 10.45 p.m. (16) The result was positive. (17) One of the police officers thereupon arrested the appellant in terms both of section 2 (4) of the Road Safety...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Breen v Pirie
...and conviction under sec. 5 (1) quashed. Wiltshire v. BarrettELR, [1966] 1 Q.B. 312, R. v. WayUNK, [1970] R.T.R. 348, and Seaton v. Allan,1973 J.C. 24, followed. Observed that it could not be said that at the time of the arrest the accused was either committing or apparently committing an o......
-
Appeal Against Sentence By Her Majesty's Advocate Against Gordon Collins
...that on conviction, rather than imposing a cumulo sentence, the court should impose a sentence on each of the charges (Seaton v Allan, 1973 JC 24 at 31, per the Lord Justice Clerk (Wheatley)). In Caringi v HM Advocate, 1989 SCCR 223 it was observed by a Bench of five judges that whether the......
-
Smith v Ross
...to have regard to evidence not depending on these procedures. The evidence here was "overwhelming"; and appeal allowed. Seaton v. AllanSC 1973 J.C. 24 considered. James Rutherford Ross was charged in the Sheriff Court at Edinburgh on a complaint at the instance of Edwin George Smith, Procur......