Pugsley v Hunter: 1973

The court discussed the basis of a submission that there existed special reasons for non-disqualification for driving whilst under the influence of drink when the driver’s drinks had been spiked. It was necessary for the applicant to show first, that his drinks had been laced, and secondly that he did not know or suspect that his drinks had been laced, and thirdly, that if his drinks had not been laced he would have been below the prescribed limit. The burden of proof lay on the defendant.


[1973] RTR 284, [1973] 1 WLR 578

Cited by:

CitedDirector 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 . .
CitedSmeaton v Harrow Crown Court Admn 9-Jul-2007
Renewed application for leave to bring judicial review of magistrates not to find special reasons for not imposing mandatory disqualification after conviction for driving with excess alcohol. Suggestion that drinks had been laced. . .
CitedDirector of Public Prosecutions v Bristow QBD 28-Oct-1996
The prosecutor appealed against the decision of the magistrates, having found the defendant guilty of driving with excess alcohol, then not to disqualify him, finding special reasons for so doing. He had gone in answer to a call that a child niece . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic

Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.187417