Templeton v H. M. Advocate
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 19 May 1961 |
| Date | 19 May 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 13. |
| Court | High Court of Justiciary |
HIGH COURT.
Lord Justice-General. Lord Carmont. Lord Guthrie.
Crime—Statutory offences—Offence where competent to convict of lesser offence than that charged—Circumstances in which presiding Judge should charge jury on lesser offence—Road Traffic Act, 1930 (20 and 21 Geo. V, cap. 43), sec. 11—Road Traffic Act, 1956 (4 and 5 Eliz. II, cap. 67), sec. 8.
The Road Traffic Act, 1956, enacts by sec. 8 (1), that it shall be an offence to cause the death of another person by driving recklessly. Sec. 8 (4) of the Act enacts that it is open to a jury in considering an offence under sec. 8 (1) to find the accused guilty of contravening sec. 11 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, if they are not satisfied that death was caused by reckless driving. Sec. 11 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, enacts that it shall be an offence to drive a motor vehicle recklessly.
An accused person was tried in the High Court on an indictment which charged him with driving a motor vehicle in a reckless and culpable manner on a public road, and thereby killing a person on the road. The indictment alternatively charged the accused with contravening sec. 8 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, 1956. In his charge the presiding Judge did not direct the jury that it was open to them, if they were not satisfied that death had been caused by reckless driving, to convict the accused of an offence under sec. 11 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930.
Held that, as it was a matter for the presiding Judge in each case to decide whether or not to charge the jury on the possibility of convicting the accused of a lesser offence, the presiding Judge was not bound to direct the jury that it was open to them to convict the accused of an offence under sec. 11 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930.
Observed, per the Lord Justice-General, that the purpose of sec. 8 (4) of the Road Traffic Act, 1956, was to prevent the accused escaping all punishment for reckless driving where reckless driving had not been established as the cause of death, and that sec. 8 (4) was a provision in favour of the prosecution and not the defence.
Norman Douglas Templeton was charged on an indictment which set forth "that you did, on 30th July 1960, on the Dalbeattie to Castle Douglas public road between Dalbeattie aforesaid and a part of said road opposite the farmlands of Ernespie, Parish of Crossmichael, all in the Stewartry of Kirkcudbright, while under the influence of intoxicating liquor drive a motor car, the steering gear of which was not maintained in good and efficient working order and was not properly adjusted, in a culpable and reckless manner and at an excessive rate of speed and failed to pay sufficient attention to the safe driving thereof and to keep a proper look out and to keep said motor car under proper control, all to the danger of the lieges, and particularly of Robert Hugh Smillie Campbell Cochrane, Leathes Cottage, Parish of Buittle, Stewartry of Kirkcudbright, who was then riding a pedal cycle in the opposite direction on said road, and you did cause said motor car to collide with him and said cycle in consequence of which he sustained injuries from which he died on 6th August 1960, and you did kill him, or alternatively the charges against you are that at the time and place above libelled (1) you did cause the death of said Robert Hugh Smillie Campbell Cochrane by the driving of said motor car 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 which was actually at the time or which might reasonably have been expected to be there, and by causing said motor car to collide with said Robert Hugh Smillie Campbell Cochrane as aforesaid, contrary to the Road Traffic Act, 1956, section 8, (2) you were when driving said motor car under the influence of drink to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control thereof, contrary to the Road Traffic Act, 1930, section 15 (1), and (3) you did use said motor car when the steering gear fitted thereto was not maintained in good and efficient working order and was not properly adjusted, contrary to Regulations 76 and 104 of the Motor Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations, 1955, made under the Road Traffic Act, 1930."
The accused was tried before Lord Walker and a jury in the High Court at Dumfries...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Steele v HM Advocate ; Forbes v HM Advocate
...appeals allowed,convictions of theft quashed and convictions of resetsubstituted. Dictum of Lord Guthrie in Templeton v. H.M. AdvocateSC1961 J.C. 62 at p. 69 approved. Kilna v. H.M. AdvocateSC 1960 J.C. 23 distinguished. Kevin Munro Steele and David Landells Forbes were charged on an indict......
-
Whiteside v Hm Advocate
...the accused, the trial judge had been correct not to give a direction on culpable homicide; and appeal refused. Templeton v HM AdvocateSC 1961 JC 62 applied. Thomas Whiteside was charged, along with two other persons, on an indictment at the instance of the Rt Hon the Lord Rodger of Earlsfe......
-
Duncan v HM Advocate
...156 NLJ 1213; 150 SJLB 984 Steele v HM Advocate 1992 JC 1; 1992 SLT 847; 1992 SCCR 30; The Times, 31 October 1991 Templeton v HM Advocate 1961 JC 62; 1961 SLT 328; [1961] Crim LR 720 Justiciary — Procedure — Charge to jury — Misdirection by omission — Provocation not raised by defence in ju......
-
Nelson v HM Advocate
...a jury on the issues which are live at the trial. This central aspect of adversarial procedure is exemplified by Templeton v HM Advocate [1961 JC 62] in which it was emphasised that, if the parties choose to peril their cases simply on whether the accused is, or is not, guilty of the offenc......