BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

Scottish Court of Session Decisions


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> Hastings and Others v. Chalmers [1890] ScotLR 28_207 (16 December 1890)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1890/28SLR0207.html
Cite as: [1890] ScotLR 28_207, [1890] SLR 28_207

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]


SCOTTISH_SLR_Court_of_Session

Page: 207

Court of Session Inner House First Division.

Tuesday, December 16. 1890.

28 SLR 207

Hastings and Others

v.

Chalmers.

Subject_1Public Service
Subject_2Evidence
Subject_3Diligence for Recovery of Documents
Subject_4Report by Police Officer to Procurator-Fiscal — Confidential Communications — Reparation — Illegal Arrest.
Facts:

A sergeant of police having arrested certain persons, thereafter made two separate reports to the procurator-fiscal relative to the circumstances of the arrest. In an action of damages against the sergeant for illegal arrest an application was made for the recovery of the reports that they might be used in evidence. Motion refused.

Headnote:

This was a motion in the Single Bills incidental to an action of damages raised by the pursuers against the defender, who was at the time of the alleged illegal apprehension complained of a sergeant in the Linlithgowshire police. The pursuers had been arrested by the defender upon 4th June 1889, the defender acting at the demand of James Charles, master of the s.s. “Tay,” in which vessel the defenders were seamen; and the defender thereafter made two separate reports to the procurator-fiscal relating to the circumstances of the arrest. The motion was for the recovery of these reports, that they might be used in evidence before the jury which was summoned to try the action of damages.

The pursuers in supporting the motion relied upon the authority of Henderson v. Robertson, 15 D. 292; Dickson on Evidence, sec. 1655 (vol. ii. 907); Boag v. Gillies, 5 Deas & And. 434.

The defender was willing that the motion should be granted, but appearance was made for the Lord Advocate, who stated that while no harm to the public service was to be apprehended from the recovery of the reports referred to in this instance, yet that he objected upon general grounds to such confidential communications being recovered.

At advising—

Judgment:

Lord President—We refuse this motion on the ground that the reports sought to be recovered are confidential communications by one officer in the public service to his superior officer in the same department.

Lords Adam, M'Laren, and Kinnear concurred.

Counsel:

Counsel for the Pursuers— W. C. Smith. Agent— W..B. Rainnie, S.S.C.

Counsel for the Lord Advocate— Wallace, A.D. Agent—Crown Agent.

1890


BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1890/28SLR0207.html