Matto v Wolverhampton Crown Court

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Date1987
CourtDivisional Court
    • This document is available in original version only for vLex customers

      View this document and try vLex for 7 days
    • TRY VLEX
9 cases
  • Thomas v DPP (Note)
    • United Kingdom
    • Divisional Court
    • Invalid date
  • Braham v DPP
    • United Kingdom
    • Divisional Court
    • Invalid date
  • Sharpe v DPP
    • United Kingdom
    • Divisional Court
    • Invalid date
  • DPP v Wilson
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
    • 7 March 2001
    ...... [2001] EWHC 198 (Admin) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (DIVISIONAL COURT) Royal Courts of Justice ... she was the driver will be an important adminicle of evidence in the Crown case at the trial, the Crown will still require to satisfy the court that ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
4 books & journal articles
  • Table of Cases
    • United Kingdom
    • Wildy Simmonds & Hill Drink and Drug Drive Case Notes Preliminary Sections
    • 29 August 2015
    ...(Admin), (2005) 169 JP 576, DC" 574 Matto v Wolverhampton Crown Court [1987] RTR 337, [1987] Crim LR 641, .................................................................................................................... ! DC! 378 ...................................................... Mau......
  • Evidence
    • United Kingdom
    • Wildy Simmonds & Hill Drink and Drug Drive Case Notes Contents
    • 29 August 2015
    ...blood specimens; and DPP v MacPhail, page 344, where police required a second roadside breath test. Matto v Wolverhampton Crown Court [1987] RTR 337, [1987] Crim LR 641, 20 May 1987, QBD (DC) Where off‌icers acted mala f‌ides in requiring a screening test, it was open to the court to consid......
  • Divisional Court
    • United Kingdom
    • Journal of Criminal Law, The No. 56-2, May 1992
    • 1 May 1992
    ...Divisional Court has proceeded on the basis that proof of mala fideson the part of the police is required; but Matto v Wolverhampton CC[1987]RTR337 was decided before R v Samuel and Thomas vDPP[1991]Crim LR 269 was a case in which R v Samuel was not cited. In the presentcase, it was held th......
  • Silence: Lord Taylor's Legacy
    • United Kingdom
    • International Journal of Evidence & Proof, The No. 2-3, July 1998
    • 1 July 1998
    ...effect,thatitwouldbeperverseof a jury todrawanadverseinference.39~997]1 WLR827. 837.I~;~~es. 58ofPACE.35MattavWolverhampton Crown Court [1987] RTR337, 346.36 [1997] 2 Cr App R 27. 29.37 [1997] 2 Cr App R 27. 31 per Lord Bingham.38 [1997]1 WLR 827. In Rv KavanaghLEXIS.CA.7February1997counsel......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT