Tuck 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 plate attached to the vehicle. The magistrates allowed the inspector to be recalled.
Held: The magistrates’ had a limited discretion to allow a party to re-open his case. In this case the additional evidence was not merely formal and technical, but no loss had been occasiond to the defendant. Appeal dismissed.


Kennedy LJ, Kackay J


[2004] EWHC 728 (Admin)




Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 80(10(b)


England and Wales


CitedRegina v Pilcher 1974
The prosecutor had closed his case, and the defendant had presented some evidence. It became clear that the prosecutor had failed to present evidence on one element, and the defendant appealed his conviction after the prosecutor had been allowed to . .
CitedRegina 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 . .
CitedRegina v Francis CACD 1990
The prosecution had omitted to bring evidence that the person standing at No.20 on an identification parade was the appellant. The defence complained that the prosecutor had been allowed to re-open his case.
Held: ‘The discretion of the judge . .
CitedMorris v Matthews CA 1981
On a prosecution for theft, the prosecution failed to read a statement from the owner of the property, which statement had been served on the defence pursuant to Section 9 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967. It was submitted that there was no case to . .
CitedRegina v Vincent Munnery CACD 1992
On a charge of burglary, the prosecution had not brought evidence that the appellant was one of those who carried cartons out of Liberty’s department store. The court allowed the prosecutor to re-open his case to present that evidence.
Held: . .
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 . .
CitedKhatibi v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 28-Jan-2004
. .
CitedGillespie Bros and Co Ltd v Roy Bowles Transport Ltd CA 1973
The court looked at how it should construe the Canada Steamship guidelines with regard to an exemption clause absolving one party of responsibility for negligence. There was a express reference to negligence by the words ‘save harmless and keep . . . .

Cited by:

CitedTraves, Regina (on the Application Of) v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 30-Jun-2005
The defendant appealed conviction involving allegations that he was driving. He was sat at the wheel of a vehicle being towed by means of a rigid steel bar. He denied that he was driving, but had both steered and braked.
Held: The magistrates . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic, Magistrates

Updated: 14 October 2022; Ref: scu.195646