Trotter v Burnet
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 09 July 1947 |
| Docket Number | No. 22. |
| Date | 09 July 1947 |
| Court | High Court of Justiciary |
HIGH COURT.
Lord Justice-General. Lord Russell. Lord Keith.
Summary Procedure—Plea of guilty—Plea taken in absence—Power of Court to require presence of accused—Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act, 1940 (3 and 4 Geo. VI, cap. 42), sec. 9 (1).
Statutory Offences—Road Traffic Acts—Use of motor vehicle on road without insurance against third party risks—Permitting such use—Disqualification for holding licence—"Special reasons" for reducing or remitting statutory period of disqualification—Road Traffic Act, 1930 (20 and 21 Geo. V, cap. 43), sec. 35 (1) and (2).
The Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act, 1940, by sec. 9 (1), empowers the Court, in a summary prosecution, to dispose of the case in the absence of the accused if he has given written intimation that he pleads guilty; a proviso enacts that "the Court may, if it thinks fit, continue the case to another diet and require the attendance of the accused with a view to pronouncing sentence in his presence."
The Road Traffic Act, 1930, by sec. 35 (2), enacts that any person convicted under sec. 35 of the offence of using or permitting the use of a motor vehicle on a road when not insured against third party risks shall, "unless the Court for special reasons thinks fit to order otherwise," be disqualified for twelve months for holding a licence.
A threshing mill contractor, charged with a contravention of sec. 35 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, pleaded guilty by letter, and thereafter, in his absence, was fined by the Sheriff-substitute and disqualified for holding a licence for twelve months. The contravention arose from his having allowed his fiancée to drive his car under his supervision at a time when she had no driving licence; and, in a bill of suspension of his sentence, he averred that he had been driving for eighteen years and had never been in trouble, that his car was covered by insurance when driven by himself or by any licensed driver, that the holding of a licence was essential to the proper carrying on of his business, and that it would be prejudicial to the public interest if he was impeded from carrying out his agricultural duties.
The Court, followingMurray v. Macmillan,1942 J. C. 10, remitted the case to the Sheriff-substitute to consider de novo whether there were special reasons for not imposing disqualification.
Observed that, particularly where the designation of an accused indicates that disqualification may prejudice the public interest, the Court should be slow to pronounce sentence in absence, and should often exercise the power conferred by the proviso to sec. 9 (1) of the Act of 1940.
Agnes Roger and Robert Trotter were charged in the Sheriff Court at Haddington on a summary complaint at the instance of David Scott Burnt, Procurator-fiscal, which set forth four contraventions of the Road Traffic Act, 1930.1 The female accused was
charged with a contravention of section 4 (1), the male accused with a contravention of section...To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Irvine v Pollock
...201-202. 3 Adair v. MunnSC, 1940 J. C. 69; Murray v. MacmillanSC, 1942 J. C. 1.0; Fairlie v. HillSC,1944 J. C. 53; Trotter v. BurnetSC, 1947 J. C. 151;Crichton v. BurrellTAX, 1951. T. C. 107: Ellice v. HendersonUNK, [1951] C. L. Y. 4 Jones v. EnglishUNK, [1951] W. N. 552:Jowett-Shooter v. F......