Khatibi v Director of Public Prosecutions [2004] EWHC 83 (Admin) (28 January 2004)

Khatibi v Director of Public Prosecutions [2004] EWHC 83 (Admin) (28 January 2004)

The magistrates had not retired to consider their verdict generally but only a discrete issue, so were entitled to adjourn for further evidence; the delay did not prejudice the appellant or breach Article 6 ECHR; and there was sufficient admissible evidence for the magistrates to find the blood analysed was that of...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2004] EWHC 83 (Admin)
Parties
Appellant/defendant: Ann Lesley Khatibi; Respondent/claimant: Director of Public Prosecutions
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 January 2004
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal by Way of Case Stated / High Court (divisional Court) Appeal From Magistrates' Court Conviction
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Evidence, Continuity of Evidence, Adjournment and Delay, Fair Trial Under Article 6 ECHR, Hearsay, Forensic Evidence
Criminal Law Road Traffic Law Evidence Admissibility of Evidence Continuity of Evidence Adjournment and Delay Fair Trial Under Article 6 ECHR Hearsay +1 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ann Lesley Khatibi

Appellant/defendant

Director of Public Prosecutions

Respondent/claimant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal by Way of Case Stated / High Court (divisional Court) Appeal From Magistrates' Court Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the magistrates erred in adjourning the case after retiring to consider a submission to allow further evidence
  2. 2 Whether the five-month adjournment breached the right to a fair trial under Article 6 ECHR
  3. 3 Whether there was sufficient evidence for the magistrates to find that the blood analysed was that of the appellant

Ratio Decidendi

The magistrates had not retired to consider their verdict generally but only a discrete issue, so were entitled to adjourn for further evidence; the delay did not prejudice the appellant or breach Article 6 ECHR; and there was sufficient admissible evidence for the magistrates to find the blood analysed was that of the appellant.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Conviction upheld
  • No order as to costs specified