Drummond, R v [2002] EWCA Crim 527 (7th March, 2002)

Drummond, R v [2002] EWCA Crim 527 (7th March, 2002)

Section 15(3) of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 imposes a persuasive burden on the defendant to prove post-incident drinking, and this interference with the presumption of innocence is justified and proportionate given the nature of drink-driving offences and the defendant's access to relevant evidence. The judge's direction to the jury was correct and compatible with the Human Rights Convention.

Citation
[2002] EWCA Crim 527
Parties
Respondent: Regina; Appellant: Andrew Drummond
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Conviction and Sentence in the Crown Court
Outcome
Appeal against conviction dismissed; appeal against sentence allowed in part
Legal Topics
Reverse Burden of Proof, Presumption of Innocence, Drink Driving Offences, Compatibility With Human Rights Convention, Section 3 a Road Traffic Act 1988, Section 15 Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988
Criminal Law Human Rights Law Road Traffic Law Reverse Burden of Proof Presumption of Innocence Drink Driving Offences Compatibility With Human Rights Convention Section 3 a Road Traffic Act 1988 +1 more

Case Brief

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 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Respondent

Andrew Drummond

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Conviction and Sentence in the Crown Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the statutory 'hip flask' defence reverse burden is compatible with Article 6(2) of the Human Rights Convention
  2. 2 Whether section 15(3) of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 imposes a persuasive or evidential burden on the defendant
  3. 3 Whether the late amendment to the indictment caused unfairness to the defendant

Ratio Decidendi

Section 15(3) of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 imposes a persuasive burden on the defendant to prove post-incident drinking, and this interference with the presumption of innocence is justified and proportionate given the nature of drink-driving offences and the defendant's access to relevant evidence. The judge's direction to the jury was correct and compatible with the Human Rights Convention.

Court Disposition

Appeal against conviction dismissed; appeal against sentence allowed in part

Orders

  • Conviction upheld on count of causing death by careless driving with excess alcohol
  • Sentence reduced from 5 years to 3.5 years imprisonment