Carroll v The Director of Public Posecutions
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE GOLDRING,MR JUSTICE SWEENEY |
| Judgment Date | 04 March 2009 |
| Neutral Citation | [2009] EWHC 554 (Admin) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Docket Number | CO/6122/2008 |
| Date | 04 March 2009 |
[2009] EWHC 554 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
DIVISIONAL COURT
Before: Lord Justice Goldring
Mr Justice Sweeney
CO/6122/2008
Mr M Giuliani (instructed by Hathaways) appeared on behalf of the Claimant
Miss S Hirst (instructed by the Crown Prosecution Service) appeared on behalf of the Defendant
(As approved)
: My Lord, Sweeney J, will give the first judgment.
: This is an appeal by way of case stated by Justices from the Gateshead Local Justice Area who, on 2 April 2008, found the appellant guilty of being drunk and disorderly, contrary to section 91(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 (the 1967 Act). The offence arose out of events at the Lobley Hill interchange in Gateshead on 11 February 2008. The Justices record in the case stated that they found the following facts:
“(a) The appellant had consumed a considerable amount of alcohol on the 11th February 2008 and was drunk.
(b) The appellant had been drinking with friends in a subway forming part of the Lobley Hill iinterchange of the A1
(c) PCs Nesbitt and Young were in a marked police vehicle approaching the roundabout at that interchange. They saw a Nissan Micra car stationary at the give way marks at the Lobley Hill road entrance to the roundabout. They then saw the defendant run into the side of the Nissan Micra vehicle and roll over the bonnet of that vehicle. The officers got out of their vehicle and assisted the appellant to his feet. PC Young said to the appellant 'I've just seen you roll over the bonnet of that car'. The appellant replied 'There's no point in denying”.
(d) Both officers noted that the appellant's speech was slurred, his eyes were glazed and that he was unsteady on his feet. He was arrested for the offence of Drunk and Disorderly and conveyed to Gateshead police station where he was charged with that offence.”
The Justices record the competing arguments and their opinion as follows:
“3. It was contended by the respondent that the appellant was aware of the presence of the stationary vehicle, he was looking straight at the vehicle and that his action in running into the vehicle was a deliberate act (of bravado intended to impress his friends) and therefore amounted to disorderly behaviour within the meaning of the Act. It was accepted by the respondent that if the action was accidental he was not guilty of the offence.
4. It was contended by the appellant that he was unaware of the existence of the vehicle at the junction until he collided with it whilst running away from a group of friends with whom he had been 'larking around'. He maintained that he had been looking over his shoulder towards his friends and that the collision was completely accidental.
5. We were not referred to any legal authority.
6. We were of the opinion that although the appellant did not have the specific intention to run into the car, and had acted recklessly, his action in running into the road as part of his larking about with his friends was not accidental and therefore amounted to disorderly behaviour. The bench accordingly found the case proved.”
Against that background the Justices ask a question in the following terms:
“The question for the opinion of the High Court is, having found the appellant had acted recklessly, were the Court correct in convicting him of being drunk and disorderly?”
On the appellant's behalf, Mr Giuliani submits, in both skeleton and oral argument, that (1) the offence of being drunk and disorderly is a crime of specific, albeit, drunken intent; (2) the prosecution set out to prove such specific intent...
To continue reading
Request your trial