swarb.co.uk - law index
These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.
Road Traffic - From: 1993 To: 1993
This page lists 11 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.
Lunt v Director of Public Prosecutions [1993] Crim LR 534
1993
QBD
Crime, Police, Road Traffic
The defendant had been in a road traffic accident. The police came to his house to investigate the accident, but he refused to unlock the door to allow them entry. Stating reliance on section 4 of the 1988 Act, the officers threatened to force entry. He was later charged and convicted under section 51(3) of the 1964 Act of wilfully obstructing the officers. He now appealed saying that the officers had not given their reason for wanting entry. Held: The appeal failed. They had a statutory right to enter, and this was independent of any failure to give reasons. In such circumstamces, the failure to allow the officers entry could amount to the offence of wilful obstruction.
Road Traffic Act 1988 4 - Police Act 1964 51(3)
1 Cites
Bemner v Westwater (1993) 1994 SLT 707
1993
HCJ
Lord Hope
Scotland, Road Traffic
A police officer was driving in the opposite direction to the accused. He came round a bend in the road to face two vehicles, one was driven by the accused overtaking the other vehicle. He was in the police officer's path. The officer braked, skidded and mounted the nearside verge, thus avoiding a head on collision. The sheriff had held that an accident had occurred owing to the presence of the accused's vehicle on the road and that the requirements of s2(1) of the 1988 Act had been met. Held: The appeal failed. The Lord Justice General said that the word 'accident' was to be given a commonsense meaning. It was not restricted to untoward or unintended consequences having an adverse physical effect.
Road Traffic Act 1988 2(1)
1 Citers
Greenway v Director of Public Prosecutions [1994] RTR 17
1993
Buckley J, Staughton LJ
Road Traffic
The defendant appealed against his conviction for driving with excess alcohol. The officer had given evidence that at the time of the test all of the readings showed that the machine was working properly. That evidence was not challenged by the defence. Held: The court rejected, submissions that the print-out had not been put in evidence and the oral evidence of the officers of the readings on the print-out, was not sufficient.
Buckley J: "For my part I would accept that as clearly sufficient evidence, albeit perhaps in shorthand, that he had considered the calibration readings amongst others, and was telling the court that the machine was reliable and was working properly and he went on to give the actual reading of 51 microgrammes. The time for the defence to challenge that aspect of the case, that is, the reliability of the machine, if they had any basis at all for doing so, was then. They did not do so and that evidence went unchallenged." and "It seems that the position is clear. Section 16 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 enables, and it is a permissive section, the prosecution to rely on the documents produced by the machine provided they do so in the prescribed fashion. But it is clear that the prosecution may also rely on the direct evidence of the officer who administered the breath test at the police station to give the reading based on his observation of the figures on the machine. If he is going to do that, he must give evidence that the machine was working properly and appeared to be reliable at the time. That is a matter of basic common sense which the courts have underlined.
The question for us is whether there was sufficient evidence in this case that that occurred. In my judgment there clearly is. That is to be found in the finding at paragraph 3 of the case ..."
Staughton LJ: "We have been referred to three cases where this court has said that, if a police officer gives oral evidence of the result of a Lion Intoximeter test but does not identify the print-out and produce it to the court, he must give evidence of the calibration of the machine both before and after the test was taken. Those cases are Owen v Chesters, Morgan v Lee and Denneny v Harding. In my judgment it does not follow that the officer must in terms give evidence of what the actual calibration results were. Here the officer's evidence-in-chief is summarised in paragraph 3 of the case as follows: 'He stated that at the time of the test all of the readings showed the machine was working properly.' That is no doubt a summary. We do not know the actual words used by the officer giving evidence, but we must accept it as an accurate and comprehensive summary. If the defence wanted to test that evidence, they should have explored the point in cross-examination. It would seem that, if the defence had done so, the sergeant could have given some answers. He had the print-out with him, but no questions were asked. In my judgment on the sergeant's evidence here there was a case to answer and the justices were entitled to find the offence proved.
It was argued by Mr Sapsard in reply that the sergeant's evidence was defective in another respect in that it did not disclose his experience of using the Lion Intoximeter and his knowledge of its operation. There is, however, nothing whatever in the case to show that this point was taken in the Magistrates' Court. It does not feature in the question which the justices stated for the opinion of the court. We have no idea whether the sergeant gave any evidence on that topic or, if he did, what his evidence amounted to. It is too late to take that point now."
1 Citers
Thom v Director of Public Prosecutions; 1993 - [1994] RTR 11
Hallett Silbermand Limited v Cheshire County Council [1993] RTR 32
1993
Road Traffic
1 Citers
Murray v Director of Public Prosecutions; QBD 4-Feb-1993 - Times, 09 February 1993; [1993] RTR 209; [1993] Crim LR 968
Director of Public Prosecutions v Kinnersley; CACD 10-Feb-1993 - Gazette, 10 February 1993
Dittah and Another v Phillipps Ind Summary, 01 March 1993
1 Mar 1993
QBD
Road Traffic, Local Government, Licensing
Limits on operation of taxis. A taxi license authorised a taxi to operate within the district to which it related and not beyond. To operate within another district would require a license from that district.
Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 46(1)(d)
Director of Public Prosecutions v Winstanley Ind Summary, 01 March 1993
1 Mar 1993
QBD
Road Traffic
A constable going through the procedure of breathalysing a motorist has the right to require a urine specimen if subsequently no doctor is available, even where he has already heard from the detainee as to his wish to provide a blood sample, and has agreed to that.
Road Traffic Act 1988
Hayes v Director of Public Prosecutions Ind Summary, 31 May 1993
31 May 1993
QBD
Road Traffic
Defendant needn't know right to refuse till decision made to take blood sample.
Road Traffic Act 1988 7 8
Regina v Director of Public Prosecutions Times, 01 June 1993
1 Jun 1993
QBD
Crime, Road Traffic
The type approval of a radar speed gun was either to be proved, or the police officer was to confirm that a radar gun was of a permitted type.
Road Traffic Act 1984 - Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988