R v Barker
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE |
| Judgment Date | 07 November 1975 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1975] EWCA Crim J1107-2 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
| Docket Number | No. 1182/B2/74 |
| Date | 07 November 1975 |
[1975] EWCA Crim J1107-2
The Lord Chief Justice of England (Lord Widgery)
Mr. Justice O'Connor
and
Mr. Justice Lawson
No. 1182/B2/74
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
MR. R. HENRIQUES appeared on behalf of the Applicant.
MR. D. PIRIE appeared on behalf of the Crown.
As long ago as the 25th January, 1974 at the Crown Court at Blackpool, this Applicant was convicted of driving a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration above the prescribed limit, and in due course before the same Court was sentenced to six months' imprisonment suspended for two years, fined £50 and disqualified from driving for four years, with a further period of one year consecutive under Section 93(3) of the Road Traffic Act, 1972.
He now, after refusal by the single Judge, renews his application for an extension of time for leave to appeal against conviction and also asks for legal aid again after refusal by the single Judge.
The case and its facts naturally resembled a great many other similar cases that have come before this Court. In substance what was said by the Prosecution was that shortly after 11 o'clock on 30th May, 1973, a uniformed police officer, travelling along a road in Blackpool saw a van leaving a minor road without observing the "Give Way" markings on the road, and this van turned into the road in which the police officer was proceeding in such proximity to him that the officer had to brake to avoid a collision. The driver then drove off and the officer gave chase. After a time the van stopped and the driver got out and ran off. The officer stopped his vehicle and ran over and apprehended him. At some stage he was asked to give one or more samples of breath further to the breath test, and at some stage he was arrested and taken to the police station, and in a moment it will be necessary to indicate just what issues arose from those matters of detail.
The case has been made more complicated in the early history by reason of the fact that a very large number of points have been argued, either in the Court below or in the form of grounds of appeal. In the end, the issue came down to a very narrow one indeed. In the end, the only-question which was left upon which guilt or innocence turned was whether the Applicant had been subjected to a breath test at the roadside, as the Prosecution alleged, or whether the first breath test had been administered at the police station, which is what...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 7-day Trial
-
R v Galbraith
...the truth then that by itself justifies them in withdrawing the case from the jury. Lord Widgery, Chief Justice, in his judgment in R. v. Barker pointed out that this was wrong …..". He then cites part of the passage we have already 9The learned Lord Justice then went on to say: "(Counsel) ......
-
R (Gujra) v Crown Prosecution Service
...In the leading authority, R v Galbraith [1981] 1 WLR 1039, 1041 Lord Lane CJ endorsed the earlier decision in R v Barker (Note) (1975) 65 Cr App R 287, 288, where Lord Widgery CJ said: "It cannot be too clearly stated that the judge's obligation to stop the case is an obligation which is ......
-
Anderson (Ovando) v R
...opinion that inconsistencies in the evidence would be unsupportive of a conviction. Prior to the advent of Galbraith, Lord Widgery C.J., in R v Barker (1975) 65 Cr. App R 287 at 288 Lord Widgery C.J. said: "Even if the judge has taken the view that the evidence could not support the convict......
-
In the Matter of the Reservation of Points of Law under S21 Supreme Court Act (Ch37) [1983] PNGLR 287
...that the evidence should be weighed only once, when it is all in. At this stage of the trial adopting what was said in Barker (1977) 65 Cr App R 287 at 288: 'It is not the judge's job to weigh the evidence, decide who is telling the truth, and to stop the case merely because he thinks the w......
-
Judge and Jury: Towards a New Division of Labour in Criminal Trials
...it is open to a trial judge todirect an acquittal where the prosecution evidence is so conflicting as to be unreliable; cf RvBarker(1975) 65 Cr App R 287 where the Court of Appeal held that even if the trial judge had taken the viewthat the evidence could not support a conviction because of......
-
Section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Act : is it time for its abolition?
...a reasonable court, acting carefully, might convict”.13 This8Metropolitan Railway Co v Jackson (1877) 3 A.C 193 (HL) 197. 9R v Barker (1977) 65 Cr App R 287, 288. See, also: R v Galbraith (above)1062.10 R v Louw 1918 AD 344; R v Thielke 1918 AD 373.11 R v Lakatula 1919 AD 362, 364; R v Abra......