R v Ferguson (Frank)

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
JudgeTHE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE
Judgment Date18 June 1970
Judgment citation (vLex)[1970] EWCA Crim J0618-2
CourtCourt of Appeal (Criminal Division)
Date18 June 1970
Docket NumberNo. 9408/B/69

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • R v Auker-Howlett
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
    • Invalid date
  • R v Miles
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
    • Invalid date
  • R v Wang (Cheong)
    • United Kingdom
    • House of Lords
    • 10 February 2005
    ...[1961] Crim LR 414; R v Draper [1962] Crim LR 107; R v Comerford [1965] 1 WLR 1059 and (1964) 49 Cr App R 77; R v Kelly [1970] 1 WLR 1050; R v Ferguson (1970) 54 Cr App R 415; R v Pico [1971] Crim LR 599 and R v Morris [1972] 1 WLR 228. To the extent that these last cases are irreconcilable......
  • R v Vickers
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
    • 14 March 1975
    ...find the Appellant guilty. It is only in the exceptional case that a Judge is able so to direct a jury upon agreed or admitted facts: see R. v. Ferguson (1970) Criminal Appeal Reports 415 at page 417. In the great majority of cases – and this case is no exception – there is a question for t......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Table of Cases
    • United Kingdom
    • Wildy Simmonds & Hill Drink and Drug Drive Case Notes Preliminary Sections
    • 29 August 2015
    ...! [2002] RTR 7, [2001] Crim LR 741, DC! 547 ........................................................................ Ferguson, R v [1970] RTR 395, CA! 192 ........................ Filmer v DPP [2006] EWHC 3450 (Admin), [2007] RTR 28, DC! 541 ..................... Forde, R on the application......
  • Failing Without Reasonable Excuse to Co-operate or to Provide Specimens
    • United Kingdom
    • Wildy Simmonds & Hill Drink and Drug Drive Case Notes Contents
    • 29 August 2015
    ...cannot fail to do something unless he is enabled to do it by the production immediately before him of the equipment. In R v Ferguson [[1970] RTR 395 (CA)] it was held that the opportunity was provided even though a device was not presented to the defendant and even though a fresh request wa......

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