R v Burton upon Trent Magistrates Court, ex parte Woolley
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 11 November 1994 |
| Date | 11 November 1994 |
| Court | Divisional Court |
Queen's Bench Divisional Court
Before Lord Justice Beldam and Mr Justice Buxton
Criminal procedure - drink-driving - breath or blood specimen - hospital cases
A police constable was not obliged to tell an injured driver in hospital why a specimen of breath could not be taken. However, at some stage during the process at the hospital the constable had to ask the driver whether there was any reason why a specimen of blood should not be taken. There was no obligation for the constable to ask specifically whether there was any such reason based on medical grounds.
The Queen's Bench Divisional Court so held in a reserved judgment in dismissing an application brought by the defendant, Philip John Woolley, for judicial review of his conviction, following a guilty plea, at Burton upon Trent Magistrates Court on July 26, 1994 of driving a motor vehicle when the proportion of alcohol in his blood exceeded the statutory limit, contrary to section 5(1)(a) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 for which he was sentenced to four months imprisonment.
Mr Morris Cooper for the defendant; Mr John McGuinness for the prosecution; Miss Clare Montgomery as amicus curiae.
MR JUSTICE BUXTON said that the court was obliged to revisit two issues of recurring difficulty:
1 The procedure to be followed at one particular stage of a breathalyser investigation and the implications of failure to follow that procedure; and
2 The limits of the jurisdiction of the Divisional Court to quash a conviction entered in a magistrates' court on a guilty plea.
Following Mr Woolley's conviction, the Crown Prosecution Service wrote to his solicitors saying that their client had not been asked whether there was any reason why a blood specimen could not be taken by a doctor. In accordance with the judgment of Williams v DPPUNK ((1994) RTR 241, 261) andDPP v WarrenELR ((1993) AC 319), that was a deficiency which should not allow the conviction to stand. "Accordingly, should your client wish to appeal the conviction for excess alcohol to the crown court … the prosecution will not resist any such appeal."
In so writing the CPS appeared to have relied on that part of the judgment in Williams that had held that where there had been a failure to observe the required procedure in seeking a blood specimen from a driver in hospital, any sample obtained was inadmissible in evidence, and thus agreed that, since the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Jones (Vivian) v DPP
-
R v Dolgellau Justices, ex parte Cartledge ; R v Penrith Justices, ex parte Marks
... ... Queen's Bench Divisional Court Before Lord Justice Stuart-Smith, Mr Justice ... In R v Burton upon Trent Justices, Ex parte WoolleyTLR (The ... ...
-
Odyssey Re (London) Ltd and Another (Claimants/Appellants) v Oic Run-off Ltd (Formerly Orion Insurance Company Plc)
... ... QBCMF 99/0512/A3 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL ... 38 "The crux of Mr Mance's attack upon Mr Sage is that this evidence was an ... ...
- Beaufont v DPP (Note)
-
Table of Cases
...74 ................................ Burridge v East [1986] RTR 328, [1986] Crim LR 632, DC ! 272 Burton upon Trent JJ, R v, ex p Woolley [1995] RTR 139, [1996] Crim LR 340, .............................................................................................................. ! DC! 9......
-
The Requirement to Provide Specimens
...point which … [counsel for the prosecutor] has thought it right to put before us.” Appeal allowed. R v Burton upon Trent JJ ex p Woolley [1995] RTR 139, [1996] Crim LR 340, 11 November 1994, QBD (DC) Where the motorist is a patient in a hospital, the officer need not ask whether there are ......