Regina v Tate: CACD 1977

At the close of a prosecution case for driving with excess alcohol, the appellant stated that he would not give or call evidence. He then submitted that the jury should be directed to consider only the admissible evidence of the analyst called who stated in cross examination, that two of the experiments had been carried out by a colleague. The results of those experiments were, therefore, hearsay and inadmissible. The trial judge then permitted the second analyst to be called, and the appeal was dismissed.
Held: ‘Since 1911 there have been a number of cases before this court and its predecessor in which the problem has had to be considered. It suffices, we think, to say without going through the cases in detail, that it is now clearly established that the trial judge has a discretion whether he will allow the prosecution to call any more evidence after they have closed their case. The exercise of discretion will not be interfered with by this court unless it has been exercised either wrongly in principle or perversely.’


Lawton LJ


[1977] RTR 17


England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedChristopher James Jolly v Director of Public Prosections Admn 31-Mar-2000
At trial in the magistrates court, the prosecution had failed to bring evidence that the computer used to analyse the defendant’s breath alcohol was in proper working condition. The defendant submitted no case to answer, and the magistrates allowed . .
CitedMacDonald v Skelt QBD 1985
At the close of the prosecution case, it was submitted that the defendant had no case to answer because there was insufficient evidence that the blood specimen taken from him and that analysed by the Scientific Officer were the same. The Justices . .
CitedTuck v Vehicle Inspectorate Admn 24-Mar-2004
The defendant appealed a conviction for exceeding the gross permitted weight on a goods vehicle. The magistrates having heard the case, the defendant submitted there was no case to answer, the prosecution having failed to bring evidence as to the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic, Evidence, Criminal Practice

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.195670