Denneny v Harding
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Year | 1986 |
| Date | 1986 |
| Court | Divisional Court |
-
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
View this document and try vLex for 7 days - TRY VLEX
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
4 cases
-
Bryan Robert Barclay V. The Procurator Fiscal, Aberdeen
...the House of Lords, the Crown noted that the English decisions in Duddy v Gallagher; Burridge v East [1986] RTR 328 and Denneny v Harding [1986] RTR 350 had similarly taken the view that conviction could proceed upon a single specimen of breath. Reid v Tudhope was correctly decided, the pro......
-
R SNEYD v DPP
...results and its importance in this respect was emphasised in Owen v Chesters, in the passage I have just quoted. 29 In Denneny v Harding [1986] RTR 350 it was said that although a police officer was able to give evidence about what he saw on the machine's display panel, the evidence of the ......
-
R Roger Leong v DPP
...in Sneyd was wrong because the court there were admitting hearsay evidence. She relies on a number of cases, such as Denneny v Harding [1986] RTR 350, in which the police officer had read off the screen and that evidence was inadmissible. It is significant that none of the judgments in any ......
-
Keith David Haggis v DPP [Qbd, 07/10/2003]
...Appellant's breath at the time the samples were provided. 5. I was referred to the following cases by the Appellant; Denneny v Harding (1986) RTR, p.350 Mayon v DPP (1989) RTR p.281 " 6 The judge expressed his opinion as follows: "6.(a) Police Constable Fagin was properly trained in the ope......
4 books & journal articles
-
Evidence
...page 435] “was wrong because the court there were admitting hearsay evidence. She relies on a number of cases, such as Denneny v Harding [1986] RTR 350, [1986] Crim LR 254], in which the police officer had read off the screen and that evidence was inadmissible. It is significant that none......
-
Table of Cases
...Dempsey v Catton [1986] RTR 194, DC! 26 ....................... Denneny v Harding [1986] RTR 350, [1986] Crim LR 254, QBD! 393 ......................................................................... Denny v DPP [1990] RTR 417, DC! 44 ..................................................... D......
-
Subject Index, Volume 76, 2003
...OF CASES, VOLUME 76, 2003Amann v Switzerland (2000) 30 EHRR 843 253DPP v Conroy [2003] EWHC 1674 Admin, QBD 266–269Denneny v Harding (1986) RTR 350 338, 339, 340Dowsett (James) v United Kingdom, 24 June (2003) Application No.:00039482/98, ECHR 247–250Elias v Passmore [1934] All ER Rep 380; ......
-
Recent Judicial Decisions
...at all which couldhave raised any doubt about the question as to whetherthe machine was operating correctly.(e) Denneny v Harding (1986) RTR 350 could be dis-tinguished because in that case the printout had not beenhanded to or served on the Defendant. In this case theevidence was that the ......