The defendant appealed his conviction for driving with excess alcohol, saying that the court had failed to allow him to raise properly expert doubts as to the prosecution evidence. He sought to challenge the effect of preservatives on the sample of blood as tested by the prosecution. The prosecution expert had only given hearsay evidence as to the testing of the blood sample by an assistant.
Held: The appeal was dismissed. ‘the question really is whether, at the completion of the case, the state of the evidence was such that the court (in this case the district judge) could properly reach the conclusion that the prosecution had proved its case against the appellant. ‘ and ‘in my judgment it was not necessary, having regard to the way in which the issue had been raised by the defence, for [the prosecution] to prove that the preservative had been added and in any quantity. The nature of the issue which had been raised by the defence merely went to whether or not the due and proper procedures had been followed at this laboratory for the purposes of the analysis being carried out professionally. ‘
Judges:
Newman J
Citations:
[2006] EWHC 1149 (Admin)
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Rutter 1976
A defendant who wished to challenge the analysis of a properly taken and analysed part specimen of blood had to challenge it by analysis of his own part specimen. A defendant who sought to establish that the part specimen analysed on behalf of the . .
Cited – Gregory v Director of Public Prosecution QBD 19-Feb-2002
An analyst had given evidence. The defence called a professor, a toxicologist, who gave expert evidence in relation to what he said were the possible consequences which could have occurred, having regard to the evidence which the prosecution had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Practice
Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.242286
