R BARRY O'BRIEN v CROWN COURT AT BLACKFRIARS

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
JudgeLORD JUSTICE KENNEDY,Mr Justice Hooper,MR JUSTICE HOOPER
Judgment Date04 April 2003
Neutral Citation[2003] EWHC 2702 (Admin)
Date04 April 2003
CourtQueen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
Docket NumberCO/564/2003

[2003] EWHC 2702 (Admin)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION

DIVISIONAL COURT

Royal Courts of Justice

Strand

London WC2

Before:

Lord Justice Kennedy

Mr Justice Hooper

CO/564/2003

The Queen on the Application of Barry O'Brien
Claimant
and
Crown Court at Blackfriars
Defendant

The Claimant appeared on his own behalf

The Defendant did not appear and was not represented

LORD JUSTICE KENNEDY
1

Mr Justice Hooper will give the first judgment.

MR JUSTICE HOOPER
2

This is a renewed application for permission to apply for judicial review to challenge the decision of the Crown Court sitting at Blackfriars to decline to state a case.

3

On 14th November 2002 Mr Recorder Weatherhill QC (sitting with justices) dismissed the claimant's appeal against his conviction by Marylebone Magistrates' Court for an offence under section 172(3) of the Road Traffic Act 1988. On appeal the fine imposed by the Magistrates' Court was reduced, but the endorsement of the claimant's driving licence with three penalty points was upheld.

4

Section 172(2) provides that:

"Where the driver of a vehicle is alleged to be guilty of an offence to which this section applies—

(a) the person keeping the vehicle shall give such information as to the identity of the driver as he may be required to give by or on behalf of a chief officer of police, …"

5

Subsection (3) makes it an offence to fail to comply with such a requirement. There is no dispute that the claimant received the appropriate notice; that the notice related to an offence to which section 172 applied, namely going through a red light; and that the claimant declined to give the information required of him.

6

Before the Crown Court the claimant unsuccessfully submitted that section 172 was an infringement of his human rights as guaranteed by Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, in that it required him to incriminate himself.

7

Having considered various cases which the claimant invited the court to consider, the court concluded, on the authority of Brown v Stott [2001] 2 WLR 817 PC, that the requirement under section 172 was "Convention compliant". The Crown Court concluded that the application to state a case was frivolous and refused to...

To continue reading

Request your trial

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