DPP v Harrison
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | MR JUSTICE DAVIS,LORD JUSTICE LATHAM |
| Judgment Date | 01 March 2007 |
| Neutral Citation | [2007] EWHC 556 (Admin) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Docket Number | CO/10048/2006 |
| Date | 01 March 2007 |
[2007] EWHC 556 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
DIVISIONAL COURT
Lord Justice Latham
Mr Justice Davis
CO/10048/2006
MR G WHELAN (instructed by CPS Greater Manchester) appeared on behalf of the CLAIMANT
MR G ROBINSON (instructed by Cyril Morris Arkwright) appeared on behalf of the DEFENDANT
This is an appeal by way of case stated brought by the prosecutor against a decision of the Bolton Magistrates given on 15th September 2006. By that decision the Magistrates found special reasons for not disqualifying the respondent, Mr Dean Harrison, from driving.
The respondent was charged on 28th May 2006 with driving a Vauxhall Corsa motor car on a road called Jackson Street in Bolton, after consuming so much alcohol that the proportion of it in his breath exceeded the prescribed limit. On 7th September 2006, he pleaded guilty to the allegation and indicated that special reasons were to be advanced for him not to be disqualified.
The hearing took place on 15th September 2006 and evidence was adduced from the respondent. The prosecutor did not adduce any evidence. The Justices found as facts, amongst others, that the respondent's alcohol reading was 54 micrograms of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath. He resided at 352 Bolton Road in Kearsley with his partner and daughter and during the six month period prior to 28th May 2006 the respondent had been the subject of continual harassment from a gang of youths which took the form of verbal abuse, damage to his vehicle and bottles being thrown onto his property. The respondent had reported these incidents to the police but no action could be taken by the police because the culprits could not be identified.
It was further found that on 27th May 2006 the respondent went to bed at about 9.30 in the evening after consuming some alcohol during the day. He went to bed as normal because it was his daughter's christening the following day. At approximately 12.30 am on 28th May 2006 the respondent and his partner were awakened by the sound of breaking glass and verbal abuse. The respondent then noticed approximately 15 youths in the front garden of number 365 Bolton Road. That neighbour was in France on holiday and the youths were apparently breaking the windows at the property. The respondent heard one of the youths shouting "Where is the golf club?" and the respondent believed that a golf club had been used in the attack on the neighbour's property.
The respondent then telephoned the police to report the incident and was told to remain at his property. The youths then ran round the back of the respondent's property. They damaged the respondent's back gate to such an extent that it was forced away from its hinges, allowing the youths to enter his back garden. Once inside, the youths threw a brick through the respondent's patio doors causing the glass to smash. He then came downstairs to see the damage and he saw the youths going away from the scene.
There was at this stage no sign of the police. The respondent decided to go after the youths in order to identify them. He got dressed and got a baseball bat, which he kept at his property for his own protection, and left his property on foot. There were at this stage other neighbours out in the street owing to the noise of the anti-social acts of the gang of youths, but they did not follow the youths.
The youths were shouting abuse as they were going away. The respondent got into his vehicle and drove towards the youths in an attempt to identify them. The youths were at this stage some way away from the property. The respondent drove approximately 400 yards to confront the youths. He switched the car engine off, leaving his headlights on and got out of the vehicle. The respondent was seeking to identify the youth who had smashed his window and was struck by one youth in the face. He then went back to his vehicle and got his baseball bat. A passing police vehicle then approached and the youths scattered.
The respondent was breathalysed and arrested on suspicion of driving with excess alcohol. The lower of the two specimens later provided showed 54 micrograms in 100 millilitres of breath, the legal limit being 35.
The Justices went on correctly to direct themselves that for special reasons to be shown the reasons must be special to the facts of the offence and not to the offender, and that there must be clear and compelling circumstances before finding a special reason. The law necessarily has to maintain a stern approach to matters of this kind owing to the policy behind the Act in question. That is to be emphasised because, on one view, it is possible to have some sympathy for the respondent.
A number of authorities were referred to the Justices, as indeed have been referred to us. Those include, amongst others, Taylor v Rajan [1974] QB 424, Chatters v Burke [1986] 3 AER 168, and DPP v Bristow [1998] RTR 100.
The Justices then went on to apply certain criteria as set out in various of the cases and in respect of which no complaint can be or is made. The Justices also in the case stated state that they had been referred to cases in relation to emergency situations; and the Justices indicated that they found in this case that it did not fall into that category. However, it may be noted that in the reasons given at the time of the hearing the Justices, amongst other things, had said this:
"We have also considered what a sober, reasonable and responsible friend who was present at the time but who was a non-driver and thus unable to help, would have advised in the circumstances. We came to the conclusion that you would not have been stopped from driving in that particular situation."
That is the test which, more conventionally, is usually applied in an emergency situation so called.
The Justices then went on to set out the seven criteria identified in the case of Chatters v Burke and then repeated some of their findings and included others. The findings which they made in this context were, amongst other things, that the vehicle was driven at a normal pace and had not been driven erratically or over the speed limit; that the vehicle in question was in a good state of repair and roadworthy; that they were satisfied that there was no need to drive far in any...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Table of Cases
...Harper, DPP v [1997] 1 WLR 1406, [1998] RTR 200, DC! 464 ................................................ Harrison, DPP v [2007] EWHC 556 (Admin), DC! 511 ..................................................................... Hartland v Alden [1987] RTR 253, DC! 3 .................................
-
Special Reasons
...a friend would advise not to drive in those circumstances.” The answer to the question was “yes”; appeal allowed. DPP v Harrison [2007] EWHC 556 (Admin), unreported, 1 March 2007, QBD (DC) On the facts of this case (defendant who had been subjected to harassment drove 446 yards, giving rise......