DPP v Boyd Owusu Agyemang
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE RICHARDS,MR JUSTICE MADDISON |
| Judgment Date | 24 June 2009 |
| Neutral Citation | [2009] EWHC 1542 (Admin) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Docket Number | CO/4034/2009 |
| Date | 24 June 2009 |
[2009] EWHC 1542 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
DIVISIONAL COURT
Lord Justice Richards
Mr Justice Maddison
CO/4034/2009
Mr Patrick Fields (instructed by CPS) appeared on behalf of the Appellant
The Respondent did not appear and was not represented
: This is an appeal by way of case stated from a decision of the Justices for the County of Hertfordshire, sitting at Stevenage Magistrates' Court, dismissing on 28 January 2009 an information against the respondent, Mr Agyemang. The appeal is brought by the Director of Public Prosecutions.
The facts are as follows. On 24 January 2008, the respondent was charged with a series of offences arising from a single incident of driving on 1 December 2007. The allegations were:
“(a) Driving a motor vehicle after consuming so much alcohol that the proportion of it in his blood exceeded the prescribed limit (contrary to section 5(1)(a) of the Road Traffic Act 1988).
(b) Driving a motor vehicle whilst disqualified for holding or obtaining a driving licence (contrary to section 103(1)(b) of the Road Traffic Act 1988).
(c) Using a motor vehicle when there was not in force in relation to that use a policy of insurance (contrary to section 143(2) of the Road Traffic Act 1988).
(d) Wilfully obstructing a police officer in the execution of his duty (contrary to section 89(2) of the Police Act 1996).
(e) Using towards Hertfordshire police officers threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour with intent to cause that person to believe that immediate unlawful violence would be used (contrary to section 4(1) and (4) of the Public Order Act 1986).”
On 8 February 2008, the respondent attended court. The case was adjourned at his request to seek legal representation. However, he failed to attend the next scheduled appearance and a warrant was issued for his arrest. That warrant was executed, and he appeared before the Magistrates' Court on 8 October 2008, when he denied all the allegations against him. The trial was then listed to take place on 28 January 2009.
On 8 December 2008, the Crown gave notice of its intention to rely upon evidence of the respondent's previous bad character. A notice in due form was submitted in relation to that application. The particulars of the bad character evidence sought to be adduced were dealt with by way of a reference to a number of previous convictions, copies of which were attached to the notice. The notice continued:
“The Crown maintain that the matters referred to above show the defendant to have a propensity to commit offences of the type he is charged with, namely driving with alcohol over the prescribed limit.”
At the initiative of the Magistrates' Court, the case was listed on 6 January 2009 for the parties to argue as to the admissibility of evidence of the respondent's bad character. No defence statement was served, but the indication at that hearing was that the respondent was disputing that he was the driver on 1 December 2007. After hearing argument, the court ruled against the Crown's application to have the previous convictions admitted as bad character evidence.
The listing of the trial for 28 January 2009 was maintained. At that hearing, the respondent changed his pleas to the offences of driving with excess alcohol and driving without insurance. The Crown offered no evidence on the allegations of obstructing a constable in the execution of his duty and threatening behaviour, and those allegations were dismissed. That left only one matter, namely the allegation of driving whilst disqualified, to be tried.
The Crown sought to rely, in support of its case on that charge, upon a memorandum of conviction dated 16 August 2007 from the Magistrates' Court showing that, on that date, the respondent had been disqualified from driving for a period of three years. It was submitted for the respondent, however, that since the bad character application had previously been refused, evidence of the respondent's previous convictions could not be admitted, or that such evidence should be excluded...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Crown v Sullivan
...laid against the defendant cannot be proved without establishing the bad character of the defendant or another ( e.g. DPP v Agyemang [2009] EWHC 1542 Admin; [2009] 173 JP 487 DC). Similarly, this provision may be available when on a charge of conspiracy it is necessary to prove the guilt o......
-
Wiping the Slate Clean: Reforming Scots Law's Approach to Evidence of the Accused's Bad Character
...of bad character in English law because they have ‘to do withthe alleged facts of the offence’: 2003 Act, s 98(a); DPP vAgyemang [2009] EWHC 1542 (Admin).Findlay Stark© 2013 The Author. The Modern Law Review © 2013 The Modern Law Review Limited. 347(2013) 76(2) MLR How far reference to othe......