Association Official's Plea Rejected
Page 19
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
WH ETHER a trade union official is YV entitled to appear in a Scottish Summary Court on behalf of a member was again discussed, on April 3, in Paisley Sheriff Court, when, for the third time, a Glasgow motor driver did not appear to answer a charge of having failed to obey the traffic lights in Paisley. On two previous occasions, a representative of the Scottish Horse and Motormen's--Association had tendered a plea of guilty, this being refused by the magistrate.
Mr. Robert Taylor, general secretary of the association, said a letter from the accused authorized him to plead guilty and he was entitled to appear as a friend, under Section 33 of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1908. In a formal case such as this he held that a union official was entitled to tender a plea of guilty. The matter had been raised at Perth Sheriff Court three weeks before and, in a few days, he was to discuss it with the Lord 'Advocate. He admitted that the plea could be accepted only at the discretion of the Court, but this could be exercised against, as well as for, lawyers. Bailie Rorison, the magistrate, repelled Mr. Taylor's plea, and intimated that a warrant would be issued. for accused's arrest.
On this announcement being made, Mr. Douglas Greig, lawyer, intimated that he would tender a plea of guilty on behalf of accused. He was representing the Scottish Horse and Motormen's Association and suggested that there might be a formal debate on the Court's right to discriminate.
The Court Assessor pointed out that it was not.a case of discrimination but of discretion.
The Deputy Fiscal, Mr. Alexander Waters, said he would advise the magistrate to accept the plea of guilty tendered by Mr. Greig, but not to admit that the latter represented the association. The debate on the representation of the association would be irrelevant.
A stated case was 'asked for but refused by the Court Assessor, on the ground that there were other and more competent means of appeal.
Accused, in his absence, was fined £1, with the option of 10 days in prison.