Ritchie v Petrie [1971] ScotHC HCJ_1 (04 November 1971)

Ritchie v Petrie [1971] ScotHC HCJ_1 (04 November 1971)

Proof of post-driving alcohol consumption is relevant and may rebut the statutory presumption created by the analyst's certificate, but in the absence of reliable evidence as to the quantity and effect of such consumption, the presumption stands and conviction is proper. The appellant was not 'driving' within the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1971] ScotHC HCJ_1
Parties
Appellant: Ritchie; Respondent: Pirie
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
04 November 1971
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
conviction affirmed
Legal Topics
Driving Under the Influence, Evidential Presumptions, Post Driving Alcohol Consumption, Onus of Proof
Criminal Law Road Traffic Law Driving Under the Influence Evidential Presumptions Post Driving Alcohol Consumption Onus of Proof

Source-derived case record

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 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ritchie

Appellant

Pirie

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether post-driving consumption of alcohol affects the evidential value of the analyst's certificate under section 1(1) of the Road Safety Act, 1967
  2. 2 Whether the appellant was 'driving' within the meaning of section 1(1) during the period of repair and alcohol consumption
  3. 3 Where the onus lies regarding the effect of post-driving alcohol consumption

Ratio Decidendi

Proof of post-driving alcohol consumption is relevant and may rebut the statutory presumption created by the analyst's certificate, but in the absence of reliable evidence as to the quantity and effect of such consumption, the presumption stands and conviction is proper. The appellant was not 'driving' within the meaning of section 1(1) during the period of repair, but insufficient evidence was led to rebut the certificate's evidential value.

Court Disposition

conviction affirmed

Orders

  • question of law answered in the affirmative