Louis v DPP
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 21 July 1997 |
| Date | 21 July 1997 |
| Court | Divisional Court |
Queen's Bench Divisional Court
Road traffic - service of doctor's certificate - document admissible
Where the prosecution in a case of driving with excess alcohol complied with the statutory requirement for service of a doctor's certificate of analysis of a blood specimen within seven days, the defendant's waiver of strict proof of service could not render the document inadmissible.
The Queen's Bench Divisional Court (Lord Justice Simon Brown and Mr Justice Owen) so stated on June 9 when dismissing an appeal by case stated by Joseph Louis against conviction by Mr Christopher Pratt, Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate at Marylebone Magistrates Court on September 19, 1996 of driving with excess alcohol.
MR JUSTICE OWEN said that service of the analyst's document under section 16 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 was a statutory requirement which could not be waived: see Tobi v NicholasUNK ([1988] RTR 343).
In the present case it was discovered that there was no signature on the certificate of service. But no submission was made that the analyst's certificate was not admissible for failure to comply with section 16.
The magistrate was not dealing...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Attorney General for the Cayman Islands v Carlyle Rudyard Roberts
...then no purported waiver of objection by counsel for the defendant can make it admissible." 28 In Louis v Director of Public Prosecutions [1998] RTR 354 the decision in Tobi v Nicholas was distinguished as the point at issue in that case was not that the certificate had not been served but ......
- Leeds City Council v Hussain
- R v (on the application of British American Tobacco UK Ltd and Others) v Secretary of State for Health
-
Jubb v DPP
...That is not to say that the print-out is not admissible in evidence for any other purpose. 29 The passage from Simon Brown LJ's judgment in Louis relied upon by Mr Ley was to similar effect as that in the judgment of Glidewell LJ which I have already read. Again, in Louis the question seems......
-
Table of Cases
...R v, ex p Smith (Steven) [1992] COD 299, DC! 560 ......................................................................... Louis v DPP [1998] RTR 354, DC! 181 .................................................................... Lowden, DPP v [1993] RTR 349, DC! 313 MacDonagh, R v [1974] QB ......
-
Specimens for Laboratory Testing
...because of the defects in the original documents …” The answer to the question was “yes”. Appeal dismissed. 180 Certificates Louis v DPP [1998] RTR 354, 9 June 1997, QBD (DC) The fact that the certificate of service of the blood analysis was unsigned did not affect the admissibility of th......