[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	Scottish High Court of Justiciary Decisons
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish High Court of Justiciary Decisons >> GARY WILLIAM LOGAN v. PROCURATOR FISCAL, KILMARNOCK [2000] ScotHC 41 (29th March, 2000) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotHC/2000/41.html Cite as: [2000] ScotHC 41

[New search] [Help]

GARY WILLIAM LOGAN v. PROCURATOR FISCAL, KILMARNOCK [2000] ScotHC 41 (29th March, 2000)

In this appeal by Stated Case the appellant is Gary William Logan. He was convicted after trial at Kilmarnock Sheriff Court of a contravention of section 2 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. He was fined £150 and disqualified from driving for a period of twelve months. The charge narrated inter alia that he drove an articulated petrol tanker dangerously, in that he drove at excessive speed for the circumstances and in a menacing manner by driving very close to the car in front, then being driven by James Nolan, and did attempt to bully said James Nolan to drive faster. The sheriff found that Mr Nolan, who lived near a road junction, left his house to drive to Glasgow, entered the junction and turned right. There were road works underway on the Glasgow bound carriageway which was restricted to a speed of 40mph. As he completed his entry manoeuvre and straightened forward, an articulated petrol tanker driven by the appellant rounded the bend behind him. The appellant saw the car driven by Mr Nolan ahead of him and had ample time and opportunity to reduce his speed to a degree that would have allowed him to remain a safe distance behind the car. Instead of doing so he continued to drive at his existing speed and came up behind Mr Nolan's vehicle so that only a distance of, at the most, 12 feet separated the two vehicles. That situation continued until the two vehicles cleared the road works and the 40mph restriction, a distance of 1.4 miles. The sheriff found that the manner of the appellant's driving fell far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver, and that it would have been obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way was dangerous. We were also informed that it was a matter of express concession by the appellant that he had been driving too close to the vehicle driven by Mr Nolan and that he had taken no steps to correct the situation.

Mr Wheatley, who appeared on behalf of the appellant, accepted that the appellant had been guilty of careless driving, but submitted that the sheriff had not been entitled to convict him of dangerous driving. There was no finding-in-fact relating to the speed of either vehicle and there was no finding to justify the allegations of excessive speed, or menacing behaviour or attempt to bully. The advocate-depute submitted that the sheriff had been entitled to find the appellant guilty of dangerous driving. On the findings he had been driving at an excessive speed in the circumstances in that he had come up behind Mr Nolan's car and failed to slow down and he had been driving so close that he could not have taken effective avoiding action if Mr Nolan had had to brake.

In this case the appellant admittedly had been driving too close to the car in front for a distance of nearly 1.4 miles, his vehicle being at the most 12 feet behind Mr Nolan's car. However, while we are told that there was a 40mph speed restriction in operation the sheriff has not made any finding as to the speed at which the two vehicles were travelling. In the absence of a finding as to the speed at which they were travelling we do not consider in the circumstances of this particular case that the sheriff was entitled to conclude that the appellant had been driving at an excessive speed such as to constitute dangerous driving. There is, in our view, no justification in the findings for the conclusion that the appellant had been behaving in a menacing manner or had attempted to bully Mr Nolan to drive faster. In the circumstances we have reached the conclusion that the sheriff was not entitled on his findings to find the appellant guilty of dangerous driving but, as we have said, it is accepted that he was guilty of careless driving. We will quash the conviction for dangerous driving and substitute a conviction for careless driving.

DL