Click the case name for better results:

Sheldrake v Director of Public Prosecutions; Attorney General’s Reference No 4 of 2002: HL 14 Oct 2004

Appeals were brought complaining as to the apparent reversal of the burden of proof in road traffic cases and in cases under the Terrorism Acts. Was a legal or an evidential burden placed on a defendant? Held: Lord Bingham of Cornhill said: ‘The overriding concern is that a trial should be fair, and the presumption … Continue reading Sheldrake v Director of Public Prosecutions; Attorney General’s Reference No 4 of 2002: HL 14 Oct 2004

Breckon v Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 22 Aug 2007

The defendant appealed against his conviction for driving with excess alcohol. Held: There was no requirement that the prosecutor should produce the results of the roadside breath test in evidence, and the breathalyser was of the approved type. The appeal failed. Reliance had been placed on the fact that the guide to type approval relating … Continue reading Breckon v Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 22 Aug 2007

Murphy v Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 20 Jun 2006

The court rejected the defendant’s argument that the prosecutor should have put in evidence the results of the roadside breath test. Mitting J referred to the case of Badkin: ‘But nothing in the judgment of Glidewell LJ leads to the conclusion that in every case the prosecution must obtain from the manufacturers an analysis of … Continue reading Murphy v Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 20 Jun 2006

Parker v Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 7 Dec 2000

The irrebuttable presumption contained in the Act that the level of alcohol contained in the accused’s blood at the time when he was stopped was no less than the level measured later that the police station, was not incompatible with the defendant’s right to a fair trial. It lay ill in the mouth of a … Continue reading Parker v Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 7 Dec 2000

Smith v Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 30 Jan 2007

The defendant appealed his conviction for driving with excess alcohol, arguing that the prosecution had failed to provide the roadside breath test figures. Held: The appeal failed, and was indeed hopeless. Pill LJ said: ‘The specimens of breath which established whether or not a defendant has committed an offence under section 5(1) of the 1988 … Continue reading Smith v Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 30 Jan 2007

Director of Public Prosecutions v Andrew Earle Anthony Brown, Jose Teixeira: QBD 16 Nov 2001

Where a defendant to a charge of driving with excess alcohol, sought to test the accuracy of the Intoximeter, the Magistrates should consider whether the evidence was as to the particular Intoximeter used, and was of sufficient quality to displace the presumption in law that the Intoximeter system in general works. The evidence in such … Continue reading Director of Public Prosecutions v Andrew Earle Anthony Brown, Jose Teixeira: QBD 16 Nov 2001

Office of the King’s Prosecutor, Brussels v Cando Armas and others: HL 17 Nov 2005

The defendant resisted extradition to Brussels saying that the offence had been committed in part in England. He had absconded and been convicted. Application was made for his return to serve his sentence. The offences associated with organisation of illegal immigration, fell within the European framework list, but section 65(2)(a) was not satisfied. Held: ‘the … Continue reading Office of the King’s Prosecutor, Brussels v Cando Armas and others: HL 17 Nov 2005

Forensic Telecommunications Services Ltd v West Yorkshire Police and Another: ChD 9 Nov 2011

The claimant alleged infringement by the defendant of assorted intellectual property rights in its database. It provided systems for recovering materials deleted from Nokia mobile phones. Held: ‘the present case is concerned with a collection of numerical data . . the individual items of data are not protected by copyright. It follows that the collection … Continue reading Forensic Telecommunications Services Ltd v West Yorkshire Police and Another: ChD 9 Nov 2011

Goldsmith v Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 4 Nov 2009

The court was asked whether a defendant who pleads guilty to an offence of driving with excess alcohol contrary to section 5(1)(a) of the Road Traffic Act 1988, and therefore admits that he was driving ‘over the limit’, can seek a Newton hearing to contest the amount by which the prosecution allege he was over … Continue reading Goldsmith v Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 4 Nov 2009

Kohler v Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 9 Jul 2010

The driver appealed against her conviction for driving with excess alcohol. She said that she had not been given the protection provided under section 9 against being required to provide a specimen whilst under the care of a doctor at hospital.