R v Barker
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
| Judge | THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE |
| Judgment Date | 07 November 1975 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1975] EWCA Crim J1107-2 |
| Docket Number | No. 1182/B2/74 |
| Date | 07 November 1975 |
[1975] EWCA Crim J1107-2
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
The Lord Chief Justice of England (Lord Widgery)
Mr. Justice O'Connor
and
Mr. Justice Lawson
No. 1182/B2/74
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...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R v Galbraith
...to be given to the prosecution evidence and as to the truthfulness of their witnesses and so on. That is what Lord Widgery, Chief Justice, in Barker (1977) 65 Cr. App. R. 287, said was clearly not permissible: "….. even if the judge (our emphasis) had taken the view that the evidence could ......
-
R v F
...the jury as "unsafe" because in his view the main prosecution witness "is not to be believed". The court endorsed the earlier decision in R v Barker [1975] 65 Cr App R 287: "It cannot be too clearly stated that the judge's obligation to stop the case is an obligation which is concerned pri......
-
R (Gujra) v Crown Prosecution Service
...an abuse of process. 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......
-
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......
-
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......