References: [2006] EWHC 1753 (Admin)
Links: Bailii
Coram: Maurice Kay LJ, Mitting J
Ratio: The court rejected the defendant’s argument that the prosecutor should have put in evidence the results of the roadside breath test. Mitting J referred to the case of Badkin: ‘But nothing in the judgment of Glidewell LJ leads to the conclusion that in every case the prosecution must obtain from the manufacturers an analysis of the proportion of alcohol in the specimen provided in the roadside breath test and put that result in evidence. That conclusion, I believe at least tentatively, is reinforced by the current wording of Section 6 and 7 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (as amended by the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003), which refers respectively to ‘preliminary tests’ at the roadside, and ‘specimens of breath for analysis’ in the police station or hospital. Only the latter need be put in evidence.’
Statutes: Road Traffic Act 1988 5(1)(a), Road Traffic Offenders Act 1998 15(2)
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:
- Cited – Attorney-General’s Reference (No 2 of 2001) HL (HL, [2003] UKHL 68, Bailii, Gazette 29-Jan-04, [2004] 2 AC 72, [2004] 1 All ER 1049, [2004] 15 BHRC 472, [2004] 1 Cr App R 25, [2004] 2 WLR 1, [2004] HRLR 16, [2004] UKHRR 193)
The house was asked whether it might be correct to stay criminal proceedings as an abuse where for delay. The defendants were prisoners in a prison riot in 1998. The case only came on for trial in 2001, when they submitted that the delay was an . . - Cited – Badkin v Director of Public Prosecutions ([1988] RTR 401)
The defendant driver had provided two specimens of breath at the police station. The device used failed to provide a printout and the constable operating it decided that it could be unreliable. He required the defendant to provide a specimen of . .
(This list may be incomplete)
This case is cited by:
- Cited – Breckon v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn (Bailii, [2007] EWHC 2013 (Admin), [2005] RTR 8)
The defendant appealed against his conviction for driving with excess alcohol.
Held: There was no requirement that the prosecutor should produce the results of the roadside breath test in evidence, and the breathalyser was of the approved . . - Cited – Smith v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn (Bailii, [2007] EWHC 100 (Admin), [2007] 4 All ER 1135)
The defendant appealed his conviction for driving with excess alcohol, arguing that the prosecution had failed to provide the roadside breath test figures.
Held: The appeal failed, and was indeed hopeless. Pill LJ said: ‘The specimens of . .
(This list may be incomplete)
Last Update: 25 June 2019
Ref: 243308
The post Murphy v Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 20 Jun 2006 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.