Graham v. Strathern [1924] ScotLR 494 (23 May 1924)

Graham v. Strathern [1924] ScotLR 494 (23 May 1924)

The pursuer failed to aver facts sufficient to show that the defender acted outwith the Summary Jurisdiction (Scotland) Act 1908 or that the statutory immunity was lost. The warrant was properly obtained under the Act, and the pursuer did not suffer imprisonment or have proceedings quashed as required by section 59. Malice alone is insufficient to remove statutory protection. Therefore, the action is excluded by statute and must be dismissed as irrelevant.

Citation
[1924] ScotLR 494
Parties
Pursuer: Andrew Walter Burton Graham; Defender: John Drummond Strathern
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
23 May 1924
Procedural Posture
Civil (reparation/damages) / Inner House Appeal (reclaiming Motion)
Outcome
action dismissed
Legal Topics
Prosecutorial Immunity, Malicious Prosecution, Statutory Interpretation, Damages for Illegal Apprehension, Privilege of Public Officials
Public Law Criminal Procedure Tort/delict Prosecutorial Immunity Malicious Prosecution Statutory Interpretation Damages for Illegal Apprehension Privilege of Public Officials

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Andrew Walter Burton Graham

Pursuer

John Drummond Strathern

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil (reparation/damages) / Inner House Appeal (reclaiming Motion)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the procurator-fiscal acted outwith statutory powers in procuring a warrant for the pursuer's apprehension
  2. 2 Whether the action for damages is excluded by section 59 of the Summary Jurisdiction (Scotland) Act 1908
  3. 3 Whether the pursuer's averments are sufficient to remove the defender from statutory protection

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuer failed to aver facts sufficient to show that the defender acted outwith the Summary Jurisdiction (Scotland) Act 1908 or that the statutory immunity was lost. The warrant was properly obtained under the Act, and the pursuer did not suffer imprisonment or have proceedings quashed as required by section 59. Malice alone is insufficient to remove statutory protection. Therefore, the action is excluded by statute and must be dismissed as irrelevant.

Court Disposition

action dismissed

Orders

  • Reclaiming note refused
  • Judgment of Lord Ordinary affirmed