(Year?) ‘From the authorities the following principles can be established. Firstly, it is for the defendant on the balance of probability to establish that his drink had been laced unknown to him. Secondly, it is very rarely that a court will be justified in drawing an inference without direct evidence of it. Thirdly, the court should decide whether the accused would not have have exceeded the legal limit if his drinks had not been laced. Fourthly, he did not know or suspect that expect his drinks had been tampered with in that way. The authorities also show that it is seldom that what I have called point 3 can be established without medical or scientific evidence, but they do not say it is impossible for the Justices to reach that conclusion without there being scientific evidence.’
Judges:
Schiemann LJ, Smedley J
Citations:
Unreported
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions v O’Connor and Chapman and Others 1991
The court looked at the elements needed to be established to support a defence to a charge of driving with excess alcohol on the basis that the defendant’s drinks had been spiked: ‘On the authorities, it is now clearly established that the matters . .
Cited by:
Cited – Regina v Gravesend Magistrates Court ex parte Baker Admn 16-Apr-1997
The defendant appealed a refusal of legal aid. She wished to establish that her drink had been spiked, and thus to establish special reasons for not being disqualified for driving with excess alcohol.
Held: Expert evidence would assist the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Road Traffic
Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.187415
