mills_dppAdmn2008
References: [2008] EWHC 3304 (Admin), (2009) 173 JP 157, [2009] RTR 12
Links: Bailii
Coram: Scot Baker LJ, Maddison J
Ratio: The defendant appealed against his conviction for driving whilst disqualified, saying that they had had insufficient evidence that he was such. It was not disputed that he was driving. Previous convictions for the same offence had been entered, but the details did not show the sentences imposed, no certificate of disqualification was entered, and it was not formally admitted. The magistrates had said that they relied on answers of ‘no comment’ given at interview.
Held: The appeal was allowed. The prosecution must prove to the criminal standard that the person accused was a disqualified driver, and secondly it can be proved by any admissible means, such as an admission — even a non-formal one by the accused — that he was a disqualified driver. It was wholly inappropriate for the magistrates to have drawn any inference from the lack of comment on the part of the appellant. It is not as if he subsequently relied on any fact or matter which gave rise to the opportunity of drawing the adverse inference from the failure to answer the question.
Statutes: Criminal Justice Act 2003 101(1)(d)
This case cites:
- Cited – Pattison v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn (Bailii, [2005] EWHC 2938 (Admin), [2006] 2 All ER 317)
The court considered the circumstances under which evidence of previous convictions could be admitted against a defendant where he did not admit that he was the same person. . .
(This list may be incomplete)
Last Update: 16 December 2018
Ref: 293959
The post Mills v Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 3 Dec 2008 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.