Luke Paul Gray v. Procurator Fiscal, Airdrie [2015] HCJAC 33

Appeal by Stated Case:- On 24 November 2014 at Airdrie Sheriff Court the
appellant was convicted after trial of a contravention of section 5(1)(a) of the
Road Traffic Act 1988, namely drink driving. During the course of the trial the
Crown led evidence from a nurse (‘G’) and two police officers. At the close of the
Crown case a ‘no case to answer submission’ was made on behalf of the appellant
in terms of section 160 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 which was
repelled by the sheriff. Thereafter there was no evidence led on behalf of the
appellant and he was subsequently convicted. Here the appellant appealed
against his conviction, the main issue being whether the Crown had led sufficient
corroborated evidence regarding whether the appellant had been driving at the
locus, namely, Monklands District General Hospital, Monks Court Avenue, Airdrie, at
the material time. The circumstances were that the appellant had attended at the
Accident and Emergency Department of Monklands District General Hospital. Nurse
‘G’ suspected that the appellant had driven to the hospital and the appellant stated
that he had driven to the hospital and further stated that he had taken drugs and he
had been drinking. He was also seen to be in possession of a set of car keys.
Accompanying the appellant was a female who, it was noted, was not in a good
state, was clearly intoxicated and was “hanging off the edge of the chair”. The police
attended at the hospital and the appellant was cautioned to which he stated:-
“I know. I shouldn’t have”. It was also noted that there was a smell of alcohol from
him and he appeared anxious, agitated and was slurring his words. Thereafter the
police asked the Appellant where his car was and he produced his keys and pointed
out a Vauxhall Astra parked close to the entrance to the hospital. The Appellant was
required in terms of section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 to provide the name of
the driver of the car. He replied “I was driving the car”. He was subsequently found
to have 62 microgrammes of alcohol per 100 millilitres of breath in his body. It was
submitted on behalf of the appellant that there was insufficient evidence that the
appellant had been driving a motor vehicle in the identified public place as
there was no independent corroboration of the essential fact of driving the source of
all of the evidence being the appellant. Here the court refused the appeal. It was
noted that whilst the evidence corroborating the appellant’s admission may not
have been very substantial, it was sufficient for a conviction. The court consider that
little more was required beyond the admission made by the appellant in response
to the section 172 request and in the circumstances here there were a number of
adminicles of evidence, including the production of the keys by the appellant, the
vehicle being parked near to the hospital and an inference could also be drawn that
the female in the appellant’s company was unfit to drive herself to walk to the hospital.
the hospital.