Taxi Driver Online

Why use taxis when you are out when you can just buy a scooter and go from one pub to the next.



A ST ANDREWS man who drove a disability motor scooter on a public road after drinking was yesterday cleared of acting culpably and recklessly.

Although Sheriff Charles Macnair said that Norman Hutchison might have acted reprehensively, there was not enough evidence to convict him of the offence.

Hutchison (56), of St Nicholas Street, had denied at Cupar Sheriff Court that on May 9, in Lamond Drive, St Andrews, he culpably and recklessly drove the scooter under the influence of alcohol to the danger of the lieges and other road users.

Witness Sergeant Paul Dick told the court about an anonymous call alleging drink driving, and he had stopped the accused.

The officer said that he had spoken to the driver, who was on a Monarch four-wheeled disabled buggy.

Hutchison smelled strongly of alcohol and a roadside breath test had been positive.

PC Andrew Walls said that a further breath test had been carried out at Glenrothes, and the lower of two readings had been 68mics—almost twice the legal limit of 35mics.

The trial was peppered with legal argument about the status of the scooter and the accused.

It emerged during evidence that, although there is no requirement for a driver’s licence, the machines have to be insured and road taxed.

It was also stated that such buggies are not classed as vehicles for the purposes of the Road Traffic Act, and there was debate about whether Hutchison should would be exempt from road traffic legislation, or could have been charged with drink-driving.

The Crown had decided to prosecute the case by way of the common law charge of culpable and reckless conduct, and after Crown evidence solicitor Douglas Williams made a defence submission of “no case to answer.”

He said that the Crown had not provided evidence of culpable of reckless conduct in respect of the driving itself, and at the time there was no traffic, no pedestrians, and no evidence of an accident.

Sheriff Charles Macnair asked Mr Williams if getting onto such a vehicle while heavily intoxicated is in itself culpable and reckless.

Mr Williams, however, argued that the crime charged was one of causing danger by reckless conduct and this had not been proved.

Depute fiscal Laura Wright said that there was enough evidence for a conviction, and it could be inferred that being under the influence of alcohol in the circumstances could be culpable and reckless.

She said there was a potential for danger to people, there could have been an accident and the accused’s ability to control the vehicle would be affected by being nearly twice the legal level for driving.

Upholding MR Williams’ submission, Sheriff Macnair said that there had been a requirement to show actual danger rather than a theoretical risk.

The sheriff said it seemed unfortunate that the Crown prosecuted the case under common law instead of road traffic legislation, but there might have been confusion over what is meant under the Chronically Sick and Disabled Person’s Act of 1970.

He said, “In my view, having regard to the nature of the evidence, it is not open to me to draw the inference of culpable and reckless conduct simply by the fact that the accused was at almost twice the legal limit—reprehensible though that might be.”