DPP v Ward
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 24 March 1997 |
| Date | 24 March 1997 |
| Court | Divisional Court |
Queen's Bench Divisional Court
Road traffic - driver's specimen - no right to legal advice
A driver with a right to replace a breath specimen with a specimen of blood or urine was not entitled to have legal advice before deciding whether to exercise that right.
The Queen's Bench Divisional Court (Lord Justice Brooke and Mr Justice Blofeld) so held on March 18 when allowing an appeal by the prosecution by case stated against the acquittal by Brighton Justices on May 23, 1996 of Jack Ward of driving after having consumed alcohol in excess of the limit.
LORD JUSTICE BROOKE said that the defendant, having provided a breath specimen which contained less than 50 micrograms of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath, had declined to exercise his right under section 8(2) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 to replace the specimen with one of blood or urine.
The justices had found that the police should have waited until the defendant had spoken to a solicitor before asking him whether he wished to replace the specimen, and they excluded the evidence of the breath specimen under section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.
It was clear from DPP v BillingtonUNK ([1988] RTR 231) that the right to consult a solicitor, under section 58 of the 1984 Act, did not apply when a motorist was required to provide a specimen under...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kennedy v Crown Prosecution Service
...to change or affect in any way the section 8 procedure as considered in the line of cases to which I have referred." 16 In DPP v Ward [1999] RTR 11 a motorist aged 17 who had asked to see a solicitor gave specimens of breath but the analysis of the lower specimen was such that he was entitl......
-
DPP v Kennedy [Qbd, 24/10/2003]
...as to the exclusion of the evidence as to what happened at the police station pursuant to section 78, he reminds us of the decision in DPP v Carey (1970) AC 1072, decided at a time when a valid arrest was still a condition precedent to a conviction under what is now section 5. In that case,......
-
Yash Oberoi v DPP
...of a specimen under section 8 of the Road Traffic Act 1972 as substituted. That aspect was subsequently considered again in DPP v Ward [1999] RTR 11, in which a 17-year-old defendant had been required to provide two specimens of breath for analysis. He had asked to see a solicitor, but a so......
-
Yash Oberoi v DPP
...of a specimen under section 8 of the Road Traffic Act 1972 as substituted. That aspect was subsequently considered again in DPP v Ward [1999] RTR 11, in which a 17-year-old defendant had been required to provide two specimens of breath for analysis. He had asked to see a solicitor, but a so......
-
Table of Cases
...Ward (Andrew Stuart), DPP v, unreported, CO/3281/97, DC! 68 ............................................... Ward (Jack Evan), DPP v [1999] RTR 11, DC! 213, 343 xxviii Table of Cases .............................. Ward (Kevin William), DPP v, unreported, CO/2605/98, DC! 316 Warren, DPP v [19......
-
Evidence
...that it charges three or even two separate offences … the information was not duplicitous.” Appeal dismissed. DPP v Ward (Jack Evan) [1999] RTR 11, 18 March 1997, QBD (DC) In the circumstances of this case (defendant aged seventeen who asked for a solicitor and who did not exercise the stat......