Strathern v Lambie
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 18 July 1934 |
| Date | 18 July 1934 |
| Docket Number | No. 21. |
| Court | High Court of Justiciary |
HIGH COURT.
Lord Justice-Clerk. Lord Hunter. Ld. Anderson.
Evidence—Sufficiency—Evidence of single witness—Statutory motor car offence—Charge of reckless driving—Identification of driver.
As the result of a collision between two motor cars, the driver of one of the cars was charged with offences under the Road Traffic Act, 1930, including, inter alia, reckless driving.
At the trial the only evidence of identification of the accused as the driver of the car in question was that of a police-constable, who arrived at the locus of the accident shortly thereafter, took the names and addresses of the drivers of both cars, and warned them that they would be reported. He identified the accused as one of the drivers whom he had interviewed at the locus. His evidence was not challenged, either by cross-examination or by evidence for the defence, and no alibi was pleaded. The Sheriff-substitute found the charge not proven, on the ground that the accused had been insufficiently identified.
In a stated case in which the only question for the Court was whether the accused was sufficiently identified as the driver of the car in question, held that the identification of the accused was sufficient; per Lord Hunter on the ground that, in the actual circumstances of the case, the accused was sufficiently identified; per Lord Anderson (Lord Hunter expressing an opinion to the same effect) that—even if the identification had been a crucial point in the case, and the question had been as to whether the accused had been identified as the person who had committed the offence—there was sufficient corroboration of the evidence of the single witness from the facts and circumstances in the case, including the absence of cross-examination of that witness and the absence of evidence for the defence; per the Lord Justice-Clerk solely on the ground that the only question put to the Court was whether the accused had been identified as the driver of the car, and not whether the evidence adduced in support of that identification would have been sufficient to justify a conviction.
Observations upon the rule that a criminal charge cannot be substantiated by the uncorroborated testimony of a single person.
Harrison v. Mackenzie, 1923 J. C. 61,distinguished.
John Rankin Lambie was charged in the Sheriff Court at Glasgow upon a complaint which set forth that, "on 7th July 1933, in King Street, Rutherglen … at its junction with Greenbank Street, you did drive a motor vehicle, viz., motor car registered number G E 2750, recklessly and at a speed and in a manner which were dangerous to the public having regard to all the circumstances of the case including the nature, condition, and use of the road and the amount of traffic thereon at the time, and did drive said motor vehicle against a motor car registered number G M 1911, then being driven in a southerly direction at the junction of said Greenbank Street and said King Street by John Warnock Hamilton, 10 Queen's Crescent, Glasgow, whereby said motor car registered number G M 1911 was damaged; contrary to the Road Traffic Act, 1930,1 section 11 (1), …or alternatively,time and place above libelled, you did drive a motor vehicle, viz., said motor car registered number G E 2750, without due care and attention and without reasonable consideration for other persons using said King Street and said Greenbank Street, and did drive the said motor vehicle against a motor car registered number G M 1911, then being driven in a southerly direction at the junction of said Greenbank Street and said King Street by John Warnock Hamilton aforesaid, whereby said motor car registered number G M 1911 was damaged; contrary to the Road Traffic Act, 1930, section 12 (1)."
The complaint was called in Court on 16th August 1933, when the accused pleaded not guilty and the case was adjourned to 27th October 1933, on which date it went to trial before the interim Sheriff-substitute (A. L. Innes), who found the charge not proven, on the ground that the accused had not been sufficiently identified as the driver of the motor car G E 2750. At the request of the Procurator-fiscal, the Sheriff-substitute stated a case for appeal to the High Court of Justiciary.
The case stated that the following facts were admitted or proved:—"(1) That about 12.25 p.m. on Friday, 7th July 1933, a motor car registered number G M 1911 was being driven southwards in Greenbank Street, Rutherglen, towards King Street by
the witness Dr John Warnock Hamilton; (2) that at the same time a motor car registered number G E 2750 was being driven west-wards in King Street foresaid towards Greenbank Street foresaid; (3) that at the junction of said Greenbank Street and said King Street a collision occurred between said motor cars; (4) that John Campbell and Bernard Harty, two of the four witnesses adduced by the appellant, had seen the accident occur, but that they were unable to identify the respondent as being the driver of either of the vehicles concerned; (5) that Dr Warnock Hamilton was the driver of the motor car registered...To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Morton v H. M. Advocate
...M'Crindle v. MacMillan, 1930 J. C. 56,overruled, and dicta in M'Lennan v. H. M. Advocate, 1928 J. C. 39, and Strathern v. Lambie, 1934 J. C. 137, disapproved. Henry Morton was tried before a Sheriff and jury in the Sheriff Court at Glasgow, on an indictment at the instance of His Majesty's ......
-
Reference By Hma Against Clb
...presided. Strathern v Lambie [67] Continuing chronologically, but returning to what required to be corroborated, Strathern v Lambie 1934 JC 137 was a stated case involving a road accident. By this time the Lord Justice Clerk was Craigie Aitchison, who had been a leading defence counsel (see......
-
Gillespie v Macmillan
...6 Adam, 124, 1910 S. C. (J.) 3. 5 Bisset v. AndersonSC, 1949 J. C. 106. 1 7 Adam, 529, 1914 S. C. (J.) 187. 2 Strathern v. LambieSC, 1934 J. C. 137, was referred 3 Harrison v. Mackenzie, 1923 J. C. 61, Lord Justice-Clerk Alness at p. 64. 4 Farrell v. Concannon, supra, p. 12. 5 6 Adam, 124, ......
-
Bruce v H. M. Advocate
...that the verdict and sentence must be set aside. The Court sustained the appeal, and quashed the conviction. 1 Strathern v. LambieSC, 1934 J. C. 137, Lord Justice-Clerk Aitchison at p. 1 1934 J. C. 137. HIGH COURT. Lord Justice-Clerk. Lord Wark. Lord Carmont.No. 16. Bruce and H. M. Advocate......