DPP v D (a Juvenile) ; DPP v Rous

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Judgment Date28 June 1991
Date28 June 1991
CourtQueen's Bench Division

Queen's Bench Divisional Court

Before Lord Justice Mann and Mr Justice Hidden

Director of Public Prosecutions
and
D (a Juvenile) DPP v Rous

Road traffic - obtaining specimen - not interview

Specimen procedure not interview

The statutory procedure under sections 7 and 8 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 for obtaining specimens from drivers suspected of driving over the alcohol limit did not constitute an interview for the purposes of Code C of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (s.66) Codes of Practice.

The Queen's Bench Divisional Court so held allowing appeals by the prosecution against the decisions of (i) Chippenham Justices to exclude prosecution evidence in the case of D and (ii) South Westminster Justices to exclude prosecution evidence in the case of Henrietta Rous, in both cases under section 78 of the Police and Evidence Act 1984 on the ground that such evidence was obtained contrary to Code C for the detention, treatment and questioning of persons by police officers.

Mr David P Fisher for the prosecution in both appeals; Mr Nigel J Ley for both respondents.

LORD JUSTICE MANN said that the issue in both appeals was whether the statutory procedure under sections 7 and 8 of the 1988 Act constituted an interview for the purposes of Code C.

As a matter of impression the statutory catechism did not constitute an interview. Nor could it be considered as a discussion about the alleged crime: see DPP v BillingtonWLR ([1984] 1 WLR 535).

That view was consistent with Code C because paragraph 6C therein of the notes for guidance stated: "Procedures undertaken under section 8 of the Road Traffic Act 1972 (the statutory predecessor of sections 7 and 8 of the 1988 Act) do not constitute interviewing for the purposes of this code."

Accordingly, the justices should not have exercised their discretion...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
2 books & journal articles
  • Table of Cases
    • United Kingdom
    • Wildy Simmonds & Hill Drink and Drug Drive Case Notes Preliminary Sections
    • August 29, 2015
    ...Rothon v DPP [2006] EWHC 3330 (Admin)! 406 .................... Rous and Davis, DPP v [1991] Crim LR 911, [1992] RTR 246, DC! 433 Rowan v Chief Constable of the Merseyside Police The Times ..................................................................................... ! 3 December 198......
  • Definitions
    • United Kingdom
    • Wildy Simmonds & Hill Drink and Drug Drive Case Notes Contents
    • August 29, 2015
    ...case where this court should interfere with the exercise of that discretion …” Appeal dismissed. DPP v Rous and Davis [1991] Crim LR 911, [1992] RTR 246, 28 June 1991, QBD (DC) The procedure under s 8, Road Traff‌ic Act 1972 does not constitute an interview for the purposes of PACE. In both......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT