Index
| Author | Pauline M Callow |
| Pages | 625-654 |
Index
Index
Abduction, blood specimen taken in relation to alleged……Carless, 358
Abuse of process……Phipps, 556; Bishop’s
Stortford JJ, 593; Garrety, 594; Meakin, 595; Ivic, 596; Roberts, 600; Morris, 601
Accelerator, using, whether attempting to drive……Farrance, 410
Accident, requirement for preliminary breath test following……Graham v Albert, 20
Accused, identification of ……Barnes,
104. See also Driver, identification of Acetone, trace……Wootton, 46 Adjournment(s)……Walden, 539; Essen,
540; Filmer, 541; Williams, 542;
Visvaratnam, 543; Balogun, 544; Cherpion, 545; Petrie, 546 Admission, driving, of……Ortega, 346;
Davies, 352; Watson, 355; Charles, 361; Patterson v Charlton, 565; Williams, 565; Brown, 566
Agitation, not amounting to reasonable excuse……Meller, 256
AIDS, fear of–
" reasonable excuse, whether a……
Fountain, 251; De Freitas, 254;
Kinnersley, 529
special reason, whether a……
Kinnersley, 529
Alcohol–
amount consumed–
challenging breath analysis device by evidence of…… Cracknell v Willis, 272; Hill, 273 Lafferty, 274; Spurrier, 275; Williams, 276; Santos, 287
thought insufficient to reach limit, not a reasonable excuse……Cracknell v Willis, 272
concentration–
evidence of, by s 9 statement……Byrne, 165; Sedgemoor JJ, 169
high, significance of in relation to special reason……Taylor v Rajan, 473; Ellis, 487; Heathcote, 490; Pridige v Gant, 493; Harrison, 511; Jowle, 515; Vaughan v Dunn, 526; Mayhew, 533; Donahue, 535. See also Back-calculation
elimination rate of, need for expert evidence of……Frost, 465
unknowingly added, see Laced drinks Alternative specimen, see Statutory option Ambient fail……Hussain, 55
Analyst–
authorised……Byrne, 165 declining to analyse specimen……
Butler, 150; Higgins, 155 prosecution not required to prove qualification of……Stevens, 169 Anticoagulant……Archbold v Jones, 116.
See also Preservative
Anxiety–
" reasonable excuse, not a……Meller,
256
" special reason, not a……Phillips, 521 Appeal……Gornall, 549
Appropriate adult……Evans, 353;
Stanesby, 363
Arrest–
blood specimen, not a prerequisite for requiring……Gull v Scarborough, 2; Wilson, 7
breath specimen, not a prerequisite for requiring……Fox, 1; Gull v Scarborough, 2; Hartland v Alden,
3; Porter, 5; Kohler, 9 drink-driving, for, insufficient to prove driving……Huntley, 567
DRINK AND DRUG DRIVE CASE NOTES
Arrest, continued–
driving whilst unfit, for……Harper,
349
failing to co-operate with preliminary breath test, for, unlawful where requirement not made……Maudling, 73 hospital patient, of, prohibited……
Wilson, 7; Kohler, 9
no material distinction from detention……Porter, 5 unlawful–
not a reasonable excuse……
Hartland v Alden, 3; Thomas, 379
not alone resulting in exclusion of evidence……Kennedy, 356
not invalidating subsequent procedures……Wilson, 7; Thomas, 37
technicality, on a……Harper,
349
urine specimen, not a prerequisite for requiring……Gull v Scarborough, 2; Kohler, 9 Assumption, statutory, see Statutory assumption
Astride motor cycle/moped, whether driving……McKoen v Ellis, 422; Gunnell, 422
Attempting to drive–
driving impossible, where……Kelly v Hogan, 411
intervening factor preventing driving……Farrance, 410; Moore, 412
meaning of……Farrance, 410; Kelly v Hogan, 411; Mason, 412; Moore, 412
Autrefois acquit……Broadbent v High, 450;
Porthouse, 451; McCullagh, 451;
Williams, 452
Back-calculation……Gumbley v
Cunningham, 175
defence, not available to……
Benham, 175; Beauchamp-Thompson, 303
prosecution, not available to, in relation to special reasons…… Smith v Geraghty, 493; Smith, 496 sentencing, in relation to……
Goldsmith, 324; Woodward, 498
See also Statutory assumption
Bad faith……Fox, 1; Gull v Scarborough, 2;
Hartland v Alden, 3; Porter, 5; Kohler, 9; Dash, 10
discretionary exclusion of evidence, in case of……Godwin, 338; Daniels, 340; MacPhail,
344; Matto, 378; Thomas, 379; Wilson, 380; Ogden, 381; Corthine, 384
erroneous finding of……Corthine,
384
no evidence of……Kay, 4; Sharp v Spencer, 113; Thomas, 379; Ogden, 381 Cartledge, 382 officer acting in……Matto, 378;
Sharpe, 381
requiring second preliminary breath test, in……MacPhail, 344
See also Malpractice
Balance of probabilities, see Burden of proof, persuasive
Blood specimen(s–
alleged abduction, taken in connection with……Carless, 358
analysis of–
6 mg allowance……Walker v Hodgins, 171; Oswald, 171;
Perkins, 172; Welsh, 173; breath analysis not to be taken into account in relation to……Yhnell, 162 certificate of, service of, unsigned……Louis, 181 challenge to accuracy of……
Sophocleous v Ringer, 161;
Stephenson v Clift, 161; Gregory, 164; Walker v Hodgins, 171 defendant, by, time for……
Benham, 175 non-authorised analyst, by…… Byrne, 165; Sedgemoor JJ, 169
re-service of certificate of, to correct errors in……
Ramsey, 180
results of, not served……
Badkin, 43
rounding down of……Oswald,
171; Welsh, 173
626
Index
service of certificate of…… Anderton v Kinnard, 177;
Penman v Parker, 178; Hawkins, 179; Louis, 181; Whyte, 181; Stephens, 183; Williams, 452
showing excess alcohol, negative screening test 12 minutes after providing specimen……Parish, 296 arrest not a prerequisite for requiring ……Gull v Scarborough, 2; Wilson, 7
blood from two specimens mixed in……Dear, 150
calibration of device need not be proved where prosecution based on……Prince, 280 consent to taking of……Rawlins v
Brown, 116; Rainsbury, 121; Persaud, 123
contaminated by defendant……
Yhnell, 162
defendant having lost his part not a special reason……Lodwick v Brow, 525
division of, see Specimen(s) for laboratory testing, division of
failing to provide, see Failing to provide
hospital patient, precondition for taking from……Bryan, 78; Butler, 92
inference that person taking, is a medical practitioner…… Whitfield, 92
invalid requirement for, followed by requirement for urine specimen……Garrett, 67 irregularity in labelling of……
Butler, 150; Higgins, 155; Rawal, 188; Mills, 189
medical reasons why cannot or should not be taken – see Medical reason(s) why blood specimen cannot or should not be taken
no anticoagulant added……
Archbold v Jones, 116. See also Preservative
no right to provide where breath analysis has shown excess alcohol……Richardson, 263
oral evidence concerning – see Oral evidence
part supplied to suspect, whether……Johnson, 153; Jones, 157; O’Connell, 158; Jones, 568
place at which to be taken……
Berry, 40; Sivyer v Parker, 138; Russell v Devine, 141
printout need not be served where prosecution based on……Jubb, 331
prosecution not required to prove qualification of analyst of…… Stevens, 169
provenance of……Taylor, 57; Byrne,
165; Stevens, 169; Whyte, 181; Tremlett v Fawcett, 186; Gregson, 187; McGinty, 188; Rawal, 188; Mills, 189; Bentley, 259; Khatibi, 588. See also Urine specimen(s), provenance of
provided or taken otherwise than in connection with the alleged offence……Carless, 358 reference to two, in custody record……Gregson, 187
repeat requirement for……Berry,
40; Russell v Devine, 141 required in error but refused, breath analysis remaining admissible……Hague, 49 requirement for, whether made……Chand, 118
right to request part, no requirement to advise suspect of……Campbell, 156; Jones, 157 shaking of vials to mix preservative……Rainsbury, 121 suspect–
asking own doctor to take, not a reasonable excuse…… Smith, 225
must understand role of medical practitioner in taking of……Jackson, 69; Charles, 118; Hayes, 124; Robinson, 125; Chatelard, 126; Gorman, 127; Charles, 118
offering to provide, having failed to provide breath specimens……Perkins, 172 swabs containing ethanol used before taking……Scally, 163
DRINK AND DRUG DRIVE CASE NOTES
Blood specimen(s), continued–
unconscious person, taken from, no duty to offer choice of part……Lidington, 158
urine specimen required in place of……Davies, 28
volume of……Gregory, 164
See also Back-calculation; Certificate;
Preservative; Specimen(s) for laboratory testing; Statutory assumption
Breath, meaning of……Zafar, 414; Woolfe,
415. See also Eructation Breath alcohol level–
50 or below – see Statutory option
no evidence of……Hasler, 329
oral evidence concerning – see Oral evidence
sharp fall in, after providing positive evidential specimens……O’Sullivan, 301 Breath analysis–
51 or more, no duty to offer statutory option……Reeves v Enstone, 108; Richardson, 263
(in)admissibility of …… Kohler, 9;
Badkin, 43; Hague, 49; Evans, 49; Archbold v Jones, 116; Smith, 117; Yhnell, 162; Sykes, 207; Willicott, 395
blood or urine specimen provided, after…… Badkin, 43; Slasor, 50; Yhnell, 162; Carter, 167; May, 197 erroneous requirement for blood specimen, after…… Hague, 49; Sykes, 207 statutory option exercised, after……Robertson, 213 evidence of, excluded where bad faith by officer……MacPhail, 344
high, as basis for decision that breath analysis device unreliable……Dixon v Yardley, 45
no evidence of date/time of……
Van Flute, 391
showing excess alcohol, later screening test negative…… Snelson v Thompson, 296 Breath analysis device–
calibration of – see Calibration challenge to–
amount consumed, by reference to……Cracknell v Willis, 272; Hill, 273; Lafferty, 274
defence statement, must be raised in……Wood, 403
evidence, must be supported by……Fearnley, 401 preliminary breath test, by reference to reading from……Smith, 334
records and documents, disclosure of, in relation to – see Disclosure; Witness summons
computer connected to……Coxon,
270
day/date/time shown, error in…… Slender v Boothby, 35; Badkin, 43; Kneale, 52; Fawcett v Gasparics, 289; Mace v Dean, 388 error messages, showing – see
Ambient fail; Breath difference, Interfering substance; Trace acetone; Unreliable indication
GMT, recording times only in……
Schon, 281; Parker, 289; Bateson, 291; Mace v Dean, 388 manufacturer of, is not the prosecutor……Wood, 403
no operator of, available……
Kelliher, 39
no sample recorded by……Anderton v Waring, 201; Byrne, 208; Radford, 209
not in view when requirement for specimens made……Campbell, 192
not ready, repeat requirement, where……Morrison, 100
not responding to “start” button……Jarvis, 48 portable……Karamouzis, 216 purging of, no requirement to prove……Parkin, 279
records and documents...
To continue reading
Request your trial