Mayon v DPP
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Year | 1988 |
| Date | 1988 |
| Court | Divisional Court |
-
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
View this document and try vLex for 7 days - TRY VLEX
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
3 cases
-
Mercer v DPP
...decisions of this court, notably Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset v Creech [1986] RTR 87 and Mayon v Director of Public Prosecutions [1988] RTR 281. 29 In Creech the defendant provided one sample of breath but on hearing the result became anxious about his position and his future. While......
-
R SNEYD v DPP
...accepted limits the machine is not calibrating as it should and is therefore unreliable. 30 In Mayon v Director of Public Prosecutions [1988] RTR 281, it was held that in the absence of evidence of calibration either before or after the second specimen was produced, there had been a failure......
-
Christopher John Derham v DPP
...before the lower court that the machine was properly calibrated. The position, as clearly explained by Glidewell LJ in Mayon v DPP [1988] RTR 281, 285, is that if oral evidence is given then it is necessary for the witness to establish that the machine has been properly calibrated, but that......
2 books & journal articles
-
Table of Cases
...Mayhew v DPP, unreported, CO/313/87, DC! 533 ....................................................... Mayon v DPP [1988] RTR 281, DC! 278 , 283, 286 ...................... McClean v DPP [2009] EWHC 189 (Admin), [2009] RTR 19, DC! 122 ................................................................
-
Challenging the Breath Testing and Breath Analysis Devices
...other times did not lead them to consider that the machine was defective on the evening in question.” Application dismissed. Mayon v DPP [1988] RTR 281, 4 February 1988, QBD (DC) The breath analysis device must be shown to have been working properly by proof that the calibration was within ......