Director of Public Prosecutions v Leigh

Director of Public Prosecutions v Leigh

The evidence of Mr Clayton as to the absence of replies to section 172 requests was not hearsay evidence because it did not rely on any matter stated in the records, but on the absence of an entry. Therefore, the District Judge erred in law in excluding the evidence as hearsay.

Parties
Claimant: Director of Public Prosecutions; Defendant: Darren Leigh
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 February 2010
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal (case Stated) / Appeal From Magistrates' Court to High Court
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Hearsay Evidence, Admissibility of Business Records, Section 172 Road Traffic Act 1988
Criminal Law Evidence Hearsay Evidence Admissibility of Business Records Section 172 Road Traffic Act 1988

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

Parties

Director of Public Prosecutions

Claimant

Darren Leigh

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal (case Stated) / Appeal From Magistrates' Court to High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether evidence of absence of reply to section 172 RTA 1988 request is inadmissible hearsay
  2. 2 Whether the District Judge erred in treating Mr Clayton's evidence as hearsay

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence of Mr Clayton as to the absence of replies to section 172 requests was not hearsay evidence because it did not rely on any matter stated in the records, but on the absence of an entry. Therefore, the District Judge erred in law in excluding the evidence as hearsay.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • Case remitted to magistrates' court for further hearing
  • Costs of £1,875 awarded to the claimant