Courts of Summary Jurisdiction
| DOI | 10.1177/002201836903300101 |
| Published date | 01 January 1969 |
| Date | 01 January 1969 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
The
Journal
of
Criminal
Law
Vol.
XXXIII
No.1
JANUARY
1969
Courts
of
Summary
Jurisdiction
DRIVING
OF
TOWED
VEHICLE
A
DEFENDANT
appeared at
Old
Street Magistrates' Court on
two charges, one
under
s.I (
I)
Road Safety Act 1967
and
the
other under s, I(2)
Road
Safety Act 1967. He elected summary trial,
pleaded not guilty to both,
and
agreed to have the charges dealt
with together. Both prosecution
and
defence were legally represented.
The
prosecution gave evidence, which was not disputed, that
the defendant was seen on 18 February 1968 at about 11.30 p.m., at
the wheel of a Westminster
car
which was itself being towed by a
Ford Thames van. A length of chain
about
8 feet long connected the
two vehicles. (At the wheel of the van was another
man
who was
himselfcharged
under
s.I(I) Road Safety Act 1967,
but
subsequently
did not answer his bail
and
was therefore not in the dock with the
defendant). There were two passengers in the Westminster.
The
defendant showed signs of drink
and
was duly given a breath test
which proved positive. He was taken to
Old
Street Police Station
and, on being offered a second test, he refused, saying he was unable
to provide one. Subsequently he was asked to provide a blood
sample and, the correct procedure having been followed, he was
charged with an offence under s. I (
I)
Road Safety Act 1967.
Later at Court, he was chargedwith the alternative charge under
S.I(2) Road Safety Act 1967.
The
main prosecution witness, a
police driver, gave evidence as to the condition
of
the Westminster
car. He stated
that
after stopping the defendant he returned to the
car
and
found it in gear. He then stated
that
he de-clutched
and
put
the gear lever in neutral. He tried to operate the starter
but
found it
would not work as the battery was flat. At the time of the offence, the
officer said, the
car
was not
under
its own motion.
This evidence was not tested in cross-examination
and
at the
end
of
the prosecution case the defence solicitor submitted there
was no case to answer on Charge One. He quoted the case
of
Wallace
v. Major (1964 2All E.R.)
and
relied particularly on a
statement
of
Lord Goddard, L.C.]., at p. 88,
vi~.,
"in
my judgment,
1
To continue reading
Request your trial