References: [1976] RTR 105
Coram: Roskill LJ
Ratio: A defendant who wished to challenge the analysis of a properly taken and analysed part specimen of blood had to challenge it by analysis of his own part specimen. A defendant who sought to establish that the part specimen analysed on behalf of the prosecution did not come from him, could call evidence establishing that he had nothing to drink or that a mistake was made, but it was not open to him to attempt, by calling expert evidence, to indulge in hypothetical calculations on uncertain and unproven facts. The judge had correctly ruled that the expert evidence sought to be adduced by the applicant was inadmissible.
This case is cited by:
- Cited – Dhaliwal, Regina (on the Application Of) v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn (Bailii, [2006] EWHC 1149 (Admin))
The defendant appealed his conviction for driving with excess alcohol, saying that the court had failed to allow him to raise properly expert doubts as to the prosecution evidence. He sought to challenge the effect of preservatives on the sample of . .
(This list may be incomplete)
Last Update: 08 March 2017
Ref: 242943
The post Regina v Rutter: 1976 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.