Man convicted of laser beam misuse offence against neighbour has conviction upheld 2-1 by Sheriff Appeal Court

About this case:

• Citation:
  [2025] SAC (Crim) 3
• Judgment:
  External link
• Court:
  Sheriff Appeal Court
• Judge:
  Sheriff Principal Wade

Samuel Stewart was convicted of an offence under section 1(1) of the Laser Misuse (Vehicles) Act 2018 after the sheriff at Lanark Sheriff Court repelled a no case to answer submission. On appeal he argued that the Crown had failed to prove the essential facts of the offence beyond reasonable doubt and that the sheriff erred in his interpretation of what constituted a “laser beam” under the Act.

The appeal was heard by Sheriff Principal Gillian Wade KC and Appeal Sheriffs Derek O’Carroll and Christopher Shead. The appellant appeared as a party litigant while the Crown was represented by Harper KC. The leading opinion was issued by both Sheriff Principal Wade, with whom Appeal Sheriff O’Carroll agreed, with a dissenting opinion provided by Appeal Sheriff Shead.

Source of the beam

Under the 2018 Act, a person commits an offence if they shine a laser beam towards a vehicle which is moving or ready to move and the beam is likely to or does dazzle and distract the driver. “Laser beam” is defined under section 3 as “a beam of coherent light produced by a device of any kind”.

At trial, the Crown led evidence from the driver of the tractor, Cameron Baillie, as well as his father Andrew Baillie and a police officer, PC McAvoy. Cameron Baillie gave evidence that the appellant, who was his neighbour, shone “laser pens” at him while he was working between 1 October 2023 and 26 December 2023. Five separate video clips captured by Cameron and Andrew Baillie were led in evidence, one of which showed a red laser beam flashing in front of a moving vehicle. Both were consistent in describing the nature of the beam.

PC McAvoy spoke to executing a search warrant at the appellant’s cottage in November 2023. During the search, the appellant, who was aware of the allegation, said the device he had used was a pair of night vision binoculars. These were seized and lodged with the Crown, but not produced at trial for reasons unknown to the fiscal depute.

In his no case to answer submission, the appellant argued that the evidence was simply that a light had been shone at the body of Cameron Baillie. The sheriff held that there was a sufficiency of evidence, and that the source of the beam of coherent light did not require to be proved. He proceeded to convict the appellant, who did not lead any evidence of his own.

On appeal, the appellant submitted that, in failing to lodge the binoculars, the Crown had not proved that they emitted a laser beam as opposed to a light-emitting diode which did not emit coherent light. The only evidence of the source of the beam came from the inference drawn from PC McAvoy’s evidence. Further, the word “device” in the 2018 Act specifically referred to a laser device, not any device capable of emitting a beam of light.

Consistent with the mischief

In her opinion, Sheriff Principal Wade said of the evidence led: “The best evidence of the red beam of coherent light came from the witnesses who saw it, namely Cameron and Andrew Baillie and of course the video evidence which was shown to the sheriff and from which he was entitled to draw his own conclusions. From these sources the sheriff was entitled to and did conclude that a laser beam had been shone in contravention of the statutory provision.”

She continued: “Far from accepting that the binoculars were the source of the beam of light the sheriff made clear in rejecting a proposed adjustment to that effect that as this was only one of a number of potential competing sources of the beam he did not have an evidential basis upon which to make such a finding. So far as the question of sufficiency is concerned, the binoculars are, as the sheriff describes them, a ‘red herring in this case’.”

Turning to the meaning of “laser beam” under the Act, the Sheriff Principal said: “The appellant urges us to approach the matter having regard to an alternative definition of what constitutes a beam of coherent light under reference to what he describes as its ‘unique physical definition’. It is important that the statute does not define laser by reference to a technical standard or scientific definition as it could have done. Instead ‘laser’ is given an autonomous definition, not requiring proof as to whether a particular beam of light was one in which the photons comprising the light were, or were not in constant phase.”

She concluded: “It matters not whether a physicist would describe a given device emitting the light as a laser so long as the quality of light emitted meets the statutory definition. That approach is consistent with the mischief with which the Act is concerned.”

The court therefore refused the appeal, however the conviction was quashed and substituted with one in slightly differing terms to reflect the dates between which the offence was committed as found by the sheriff.