Cummings v Crown Prosecution Service [2016] EWHC 3624 (Admin) (15 December 2016)

Cummings v Crown Prosecution Service [2016] EWHC 3624 (Admin) (15 December 2016)

PC Parsons was entitled to refresh her memory from the contemporaneous form under section 139 Criminal Justice Act 2003 because she was present throughout the procedure, completed the form together with PS Moreland, and verified its accuracy, even though she did not sign it. Her evidence was direct, not hearsay, and the requirements of section 139 were satisfied.

Citation
[2016] EWHC 3624 (Admin)
Parties
Appellant: Davina Caroline Cummings; Respondent: Crown Prosecution Service
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 December 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal by Way of Case Stated / High Court (administrative Court) Appeal From Magistrates' Court Conviction
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Refreshing Memory From Documents, Road Traffic Offences, Breath Specimen Refusal, Section 139 Criminal Justice Act 2003, Verification of Documents
Criminal Law Evidence Refreshing Memory From Documents Road Traffic Offences Breath Specimen Refusal Section 139 Criminal Justice Act 2003 Verification of Documents

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

Davina Caroline Cummings

Appellant

Crown Prosecution Service

Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a police officer who witnessed but did not sign or complete a contemporaneous form could refresh her memory from it under section 139 Criminal Justice Act 2003
  2. 2 Whether the requirements of section 139 were satisfied in the absence of the officer's signature on the form
  3. 3 Whether the evidence given amounted to hearsay or direct evidence

Ratio Decidendi

PC Parsons was entitled to refresh her memory from the contemporaneous form under section 139 Criminal Justice Act 2003 because she was present throughout the procedure, completed the form together with PS Moreland, and verified its accuracy, even though she did not sign it. Her evidence was direct, not hearsay, and the requirements of section 139 were satisfied.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • All three questions posed by the justices answered in the affirmative
  • Summary assessment of Respondent's costs in the sum of £738.50, not to be enforced without leave of the court