References: [2009] EWHC 440 (Admin), [2009] 1 WLR 2530, (2009) 173 JP 274
Links: Bailii
Coram: Leveson LJ, Sweeney J
Ratio: The defendant faced trial for driving whilst over the prescribed alcohol limit. On a pre-trial review, the prosecution had applied for the evidence of the analyst to be given under the hearsay provisions, on the basis that she was living abroad. She had not been warned and it was not reasonably practicable to secure her attendance. At trial, the deputy district judge considered that he was bound by that ruling and refused to hear further argument on the issue of admissibility. One aspect of the case stated was whether the district judge was correct.
Held: The court allowed the appeal, applying sections 8A and 8B of the 1980 Act. There was no question of the pre-trial ruling binding the deputy judge in relation to the trial. At the trial very different considerations obtained compared with the pre-trial hearing, in particular relating to the attendance by the analyst and securing her evidence since – by then – the prosecution could well have obtained her attendance.
Statutes: Road Traffic Act 2006 5(2)(a), Magistrates’ Court Act 1980 8A 8B
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:
- Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions, Regina (on the Application of) v Chorley Justices and Forrest Admn (Bailii, [2006] EWHC 1795 (Admin))
The prosecutor applied for an order to require the magistrates to state a case. He faced a charge of driving with excess alcohol. He pleaded not guilty. There were several adjournments, and a considerable delay. At the trial, and with no . .
(This list may be incomplete)
This case is cited by:
- Cited – Jones v South East Surrey Local Justice Area Admn (Bailii, [2010] EWHC 916 (Admin), (2010) 174 JP 342)
The defendant sought judicial review of a decision of the magistrates to adjourn a case where, on the day before, a differently constitued bench had refused an adjournment requested by the prosecution. On the first occasion the prosecutor had not . . - Cited – Bielecki v The Director of Public Prosecutions Admn (Bailii, [2011] EWHC 2245 (Admin))
The court had delivered a draft judgment which counsel said was based upon a fundamental misunderstanding of the case she had presented. Counsel now suggested that the matter should be referred to a two judge divisional court. That was refused. The . .
(This list may be incomplete)
Last Update: 16 December 2018
Ref: 323733
The post Brett v Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 16 Mar 2009 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.