Bruce McDougall v. Procurator Fiscal, Perth [2015] HCJAC 112

Appeal against sentence:- On 6 August 2015, at Perth Sheriff Court, the appellant pled guilty on summary complaint at an intermediate diet to drink driving contrary to section 5(1)(a) of the Road Traffic Act 1988. He was thereafter disqualified from driving for 3 years, ordered to pass the extended driving test at the end of that period and fined £480. The appellant appealed against his sentence and contended that:- (1) he should not have been required to pass the extended driving test he should simply re-sit the ordinary driving test; and (2) the sheriff failed to make an order allowing the appellant to undertake the Vernon Manfield driving course, which would allow him to undertake a course which would lessen the period of disqualification in terms of section 34A(5) of the 1988 Act. The sheriff reported that he had not intended to require the appellant to pass the extended driving test and had intended for the appellant to only have to re-sit the ordinary test. However, the sheriff did not realize at the time of the sentencing that, in terms of section 36(5) of the 1988 Act, where a person has been convicted of an offence involving obligatory disqualification it is not competent to require a re-sit of the ordinary, as opposed to the extended one. The sheriff reported that had he been aware of that at the time of sentencing he would not have imposed the additional requirement. In relation to the alleged failure by the sheriff to make an order for the appellant’s participation on the Vernon Manfield driving course the sheriff reported that no reasons had been advanced for him to make such an order. Here the court, having regard to the views of the sentencing sheriff, allowed the appeal to the extent of quashing the requirement to pass the extended driving test. In relation to the issue of the Vernon Manfield driving course, the court considered that, whilst in a case like the present one it would be appropriate for the sheriff to make such an order, the particular course was not available locally and, along with the fact that the appellant was not present at the appeal, no such order could be made and that part of the appeal was refused.