R v Forest of Dean Justices, ex parte Farley
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 11 April 1990 |
| Date | 11 April 1990 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
Queens's Bench Division
Before Lord Justice Neill and Mr Justice Garland
Road traffic - double jeopardy - fairness
It would be oppressive and unfair for a defendant to be prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol so that the prosecution could use the conviction on that charge to found a further prosecution for causing death by reckless driving in which the only recklessness alleged would be the fact of having driven after drinking.
The Queen's Bench Divisional Court so held on an application for judicial review in granting orders restraining the Forest of Dean Justices from proceeding against John Patrick Farley on a charge of driving with excess alcohol, contrary to section 6(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1972, as substituted in Schedule 8 of the Transport Act 1981, until after his trial for causing death by reckless driving, contrary to section 1 of the 1972 Act, as substituted by section 50 of the Criminal Law Act 1977.
Miss Tacey Cronin for the applicant; Mr T Alun Jenkins for the respondent.
MR JUSTICE GARLAND said the applicant had been drinking with friends on November 5, 1988. He had given two young girls a lift in his vehicle. The vehicle had turned over at the bottom of a hill and one of the girls was killed.
The applicant had left the scene and later telephoned the police. He was not breathalysed until the following morning, when his blood alcohol level was just below the statutory limit.
The prosecution proposed to call evidence before the justices to show by back calculation that the applicant's blood alcohol would have been above the limit when the accident occurred. The applicant's defence would be that he had consumed alcohol after the accident.
Although the prosecution were able to adduce some evidence that he had been drinking before the accident, that evidence was insufficient to found a forward calculation that the proportion of alcohol in his body at the relevant time would have exceeded the limit.
The prosecution wished to proceed with the excess alcohol summary offence in order to establish that the applicant was driving at the time with excess alcohol. If they succeeded, they would then proceed with the charge of causing death by reckless driving, the recklessness being established by the excess alcohol.
The conviction could have been put in evidence in the reckless driving trial by virtue of section 74(3) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R v Phipps (James Michael)
...DPP [1964] AC 1254 and R v Beedie (1987) 2 Cr App R 176. In the particular circumstances of this case he also relies upon R v Forest of Dean Justices, ex parte Farley [1990] RTR 228 and this passage in Archbold 2005 at paragraph 32–29: " Order of trials where there is an excess alcohol char......
-
Queen v David Jonathan Holden
...arising out of the same events – see R v Elrington 121 ER 870; R v Beedie [1998] QB 356; R v Forest of Dean Justices ex parte Farley [1990] RTR 228 and Connelly v DPP [1964] AC 1254. (vii) In this case there are no special circumstances. 22 (viii) Accordingly, the trial should be stayed. [8......
-
DPP v Alexander
...78 of PACE. 31 (f) I do not consider that the position in this case is analogous to that in Phipps [2008] EWCA Crim 33 or ex parte Farley [1990] RTR 228, where successive prosecutions were brought on closely related subject matter. 32 (g) It is to be noted that the case stated does not appe......
-
R v Arnold (Louise) ; R v LSA
...these rulings in a note at paragraph 32–29 of Archbold which in turn says that it is based upon R v Forest of Dean Justices, ex p Farley [1990] RTR 228. The Crown wishes to submit on appeal that both those rulings were wrong. 3 The Crown case, put shortly, is that the defendant attended a p......
-
Divisional Court
...in, and time at,which they are preferred are obviously matters of vital importanceto the defendant. In R v ForestofDean JJ, ex pFarley[1990]RTR228, the applicant for judicial review had consumed alcoholand, in driving a vehicle on a road, had failed to negotiate abendand thus overturned the......