The court had delivered a draft judgment which counsel said was based upon a fundamental misunderstanding of the case she had presented. Counsel now suggested that the matter should be referred to a two judge divisional court. That was refused. The appellangt contended that he had not understood the request to provide a specimen of breath for analysis, since he spoke Polish and not English.
Held: The test procedure had been undertaken with a competent interpreter. However the court had refused to require the attendance of the blood analyst before proceeding. For that reason the conviction was quashed.
The court spoke of the twelve hearings on the matter, saying: ‘it is abundantly clear that it is utterly unacceptable: the requirements of the Criminal Procedure Rules have been more honoured in the breach than in their observance. Both sides have a duty to the court to ensure that only the minimum time is taken in the resolution of criminal trials and, to such extent as they or either of them fail to do so, the court should not be slow to impose sanctions in the form of adverse orders for costs, if necessary against legal representatives.’
 EWHC 2245 (Admin), (2011) 175 JP 369
Road Traffic Act 1988 7(6)
England and Wales
Cited – Owen v Chesters 1985
The court considered the means of proving the reading from a breath test meter: ‘It was clearly the intention of the legislature, in enacting subsection (5), that the defendant should be provided in advance of the hearing with the information . .
Cited – Sneyd v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 24-Feb-2006
The defendant appealed against his conviction for driving with excess alcohol. He complained that though the officers suspected him of having consumed alcohol, they asked him whether he had been drinking without cautioning him, and that no print out . .
Cited – Sneyd, Regina (on the Application Of) v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 22-Jul-2005
The defendant wished to argue a point to overturn the decision in Chesters. Accordingly the matter was adjourned for hearing by a two judge court. . .
Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions, Regina (on the Application of) v Chorley Justices and Forrest Admn 8-Jun-2006
The prosecutor applied for an order to require the magistrates to state a case. He faced a charge of driving with excess alcohol. He pleaded not guilty. There were several adjournments, and a considerable delay. At the trial, and with no . .
Cited – Brett v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 16-Mar-2009
The defendant faced trial for driving whilst over the prescribed alcohol limit. On a pre-trial review, the prosecution had applied for the evidence of the analyst to be given under the hearsay provisions, on the basis that she was living abroad. She . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 21 July 2021; Ref: scu.443278