Director of Public Prosecutions v Bolton

Director of Public Prosecutions v Bolton

The magistrates erred in law by concluding, without scientific or medical evidence, that the defendant's post-driving alcohol consumption explained the excess reading; unless the facts are obvious, such evidence is required to discharge the burden under section 15.

Parties
Claimant: Director of Public Prosecutions; Defendant: Bolton
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 June 2009
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal (case Stated) / Judgment on Appeal by Way of Case Stated
Outcome
case remitted to magistrates with directions
Legal Topics
Drink Driving, Post Driving Alcohol Consumption, Burden of Proof, Scientific Evidence in Criminal Trials
Criminal Law Road Traffic Law Drink Driving Post Driving Alcohol Consumption Burden of Proof Scientific Evidence in Criminal Trials

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Director of Public Prosecutions

Claimant

Bolton

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal (case Stated) / Judgment on Appeal by Way of Case Stated

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the magistrates erred in law by accepting the defendant's evidence without scientific or medical support in a 'hip flask' defence under section 15 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988
  2. 2 Whether lay magistrates can determine post-driving alcohol consumption cases without expert evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The magistrates erred in law by concluding, without scientific or medical evidence, that the defendant's post-driving alcohol consumption explained the excess reading; unless the facts are obvious, such evidence is required to discharge the burden under section 15.

Court Disposition

case remitted to magistrates with directions

Orders

  • The case is remitted to the Telford Magistrates' Court with a direction to allow the respondent to reopen his case by calling further evidence; failing that, a conviction must be entered for driving with excess alcohol.