Shaw v Smith [Jc]
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 05 October 1978 |
| Date | 05 October 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 9. |
| Court | High Court of Justiciary |
JC
Lords Cameron, Ross, Allanbridge.
Summary procedure—Relevancy—No crime disclosed—Competency of raising at appeal a matter fundamental to the competency of the proceedings.
The appellants boarded a passenger train bound from Edinburgh to Bristol at Edinburgh. The complaint bore only that they did so without paying or intending to pay their fare.
Held that the complaint was irrelevant in that it disclosed no crime known to the law of Scotland; and convictions quashed.
Observed that it was competent at the stage of an appeal for the Court, or a party, to raise a matter going to the root of the competency of the proceedings, even if this had not been raised in earlier proceedings, or in the stated case.
O'Malley v. Strathern 1920 J.C. 74 followed.
Sydney Lumsden Shaw, James Whyte and Fareed Ramjaum were charged in Edinburgh Sheriff Court on a complaint which set forth "That on 27th February 1978, at Waverley Railway Station, Edinburgh, you did board an Edinburgh to Bristol passenger train without paying and not intending to pay your fare." The case first called on 28th February 1978 when the appellants appeared with a solicitor and tendered a plea of not guilty. Trial was fixed for 4th May 1978 when the appellants appeared and adhered to their pleas of not guilty. All the appellants were represented by solicitors. Evidence was led and the Sheriff (Aronson) found the appellants guilty as libelled, and fined the first and second appellants £40 and the third appellant £25.
At the request of the appellants, the Sheriff stated a case for the opinion of the High Court of Justiciary.
The stated case set forth, inter alia, "I found the following facts admitted or proved:—(1) At about 11.45p.m. on 27th February 1978 the three appellants approached the barrier leading to the platform at Waverley Station, Edinburgh at which the train due to leave for Bristol was standing; (2) None of the appellants was in possession of a travel ticket and at the barrier they produced three platform tickets to the two ticket collectors on duty there; (3) As the appellants passed the barrier one of them, Fareed Ramjaum, asked if the train (that is the one which was standing at the platform) stopped at Birmingham and he was told that it did; (4) One of the ticket collectors became suspicious of the appellants and immediately summoned the transport police whom he then accompanied on to the train; (5) When they boarded the train the two police officers and the ticket collector found...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Alexander Paterson V. Her Majesty's Advocate
...were, it was submitted, fundamentally null and could not be amended. Dyce v Aitchison 1985 SLT 512 was distinguishable. Shaw v Smith 1979 JC 51 was more in point. Reference was also made to Aitkenhead v Cuthbert 1962 JC 12. The proper scope for any amendment was where something had gone wro......