DPP v Stephens
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | MR JUSTICE MITTING |
| Judgment Date | 22 June 2006 |
| Neutral Citation | [2006] EWHC 1860 (Admin) |
| Docket Number | C0/3310/06 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Date | 22 June 2006 |
[2006] EWHC 1860 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
DIVISIONAL COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand London WC2
Mr Justice Maurice Kay
Mr Justice Mitting
C0/3310/06
MR T SPENCER (instructed by the Crown Prosecution Service) appeared on behalf of the Appellant.
At 2.50 am on 17th September 2005 the respondent failed to slow down at giveway lines when entering the junction with Ladbroke Grove, W11, from Blenheim Road, in his Saab motor car. He caused a marked police car to brake sharply. The policeman in that car pursued and stopped him. He smelt alcohol on his breath and administered a roadside test which proved positive. He arrested him and took him to Notting Hill Police Station where two evidential breath tests were administered. The lower reading was 41 micrograms of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath. Because the reading was below 50 micrograms of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath, the police sergeant who conducted the procedure offered him the option of providing a specimen of blood or urine. The respondent elected for blood. Dr. Frazer was summoned and took a blood sample which was divided into two. One phial was given to the respondent and the other sent for analysis.
An information was laid on 1st November 2005 that the respondent had committed an offence contrary to section 5(1)(a) of the Road Traffic Act 1988. He was tried at Richmond Magistrates' Court on 23rd January 2006. At trial the prosecution sought to prove the taking of the blood sample by Dr Frazer by a witness statement tendered under section 9 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967, and to prove the proportion of alcohol in the blood specimen by a certificate signed by an authorised analyst under section 16(1)(b) of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. If admitted in evidence, the certificate would have stated that the proportion of alcohol in the specimen of blood was 83 milligrams in 100 millilitres of blood.
The respondent contended that the witness statement of Dr Frazer and the certificate were inadmissible. The justices upheld that submission and, there being no evidence of the proportion of alcohol in the specimen of blood, dismissed the case. No objection to the admission of that evidence had been notified to the appellant before the case began, nor was objection taken to its content. Objection was taken and upheld solely on the ground that Dr. Frazer's witness statement and the certificate had not been served under section 16 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. An application by the appellant to adjourn the proceedings to permit service to be re-effected or to call live evidence from Dr. Frazer and the analyst was rejected.
Three questions are posed for answer in the stated case:
"a) whether we were correct in law to rule that because the statement of Dr. Frazer had not been served by registered post or recorded delivery in accordance with section 16(6) of the Road Traffic Offenders Act were we bound to rule it admissible;
(b whether we were correct in law to rule that because the Certificate of Analysis had not been served by registered post or recorded delivery in accordance with section 16(6) of the Road Traffic Offenders Act we were bound to rule it inadmissible;
c) whether our decision not to grant an adjournment to the prosecution was 'Wednesbury' unreasonable, where the evidence of Dr Frazer and the contents of the Certificate of Analysis were not in dispute and the defence did not require the attendance of Dr Frazer or of the maker of the certificate."
The first two questions concern the means by which the witness statement and the analyst's certificate may be served. The relevant provisions are as follows. Section 16(1) of the Road Traffic Offenders Act:
(1) Evidence of the proportion of alcohol or a drug in a specimen of breath, blood or urine may, subject to subsections (3) and (4) below and to section 15(5) and (5A) of this Act, be given by the production of a document or documents purporting to be whichever of the following is appropriate, that is to say -
(a) a statement automatically produced by the device by which the proportion of alcohol in a specimen of breath was measured and a certificate signed by a constable (which may but need not be contained in the same...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Adrian Nation v DPP and Attorney General of Jamaica
... ... 27 In an area where local decisions relating to bail are scanty, I am the beneficiary of the judgment of my brother Sykes J in the case Stephens v. the Director of Public Prosecutions 2006 HCV 0520 (delivered on January 23, 2007) ... He was dealing with the Privy Council's reasoning in the case Hurnam v. The State PCA 53 of 2004 (delivered December 15, 2005) ... At paragraph 16, Sykes J stated ... ‘The European Court of Justice ... ...
-
Huey Gowdie v R
...an application for the grant of bail. These principles may be distilled from the judgments in a number of cases including Hurnam, Stephens, and Thelston Brooks v The Attorney General and Another Claim No AXA HCR 2006/0089 (a decision of the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court in the High Court ......
-
Peter Brett v DPP
...open to the prosecution to seek to rely on any other provision for admitting that evidence. In support of that proposition, she cites D.P.P. v. Stephens [2006] EWHC 1860 (Admin) in which this court was concerned with the failure to serve the analyst's certificate by one of the mechanisms pr......
-
Table of Cases
...Steadman v DPP [2002] EWHC 810 (Admin), [2003] RTR 2, DC! 31 .............................................. Stephens, DPP v [2006] EWHC 1860 (Admin), DC! 183 ................................................................ Stephenson v Clift [1988] RTR 171, DC! 161 Stepniewski v Commissione......
-
Specimens for Laboratory Testing
...come to the opposite conclusion.” The answers to the questions were (i), no; (ii), yes; (iii), no. Appeal allowed. DPP v Stephens [2006] EWHC 1860 (Admin), unreported, 22 June 2006, QBD (DC) A doctor’s witness statement of taking a blood specimen was validly served under s 9, Criminal Justi......