The Director of Public Prosecutions, R (on the application of) v Preston [2003] EWHC 729 (Admin) (20 March 2003)

The Director of Public Prosecutions, R (on the application of) v Preston [2003] EWHC 729 (Admin) (20 March 2003)

There was no evidence of a material breach of Code C or that the respondent did not comprehend the drink drive procedure; therefore, the Magistrates' exclusion of the blood alcohol evidence was Wednesbury unreasonable and not justified under section 78 PACE.

Citation
[2003] EWHC 729 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Director of Public Prosecutions; Defendant: Derek Preston
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 March 2003
Procedural Posture
Prosecutor's Appeal by Way of Case Stated / High Court Judgment on Appeal From Magistrates' Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed; case remitted for rehearing before a different Bench.
Legal Topics
Exclusion of Evidence, Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, Road Traffic Act 1988, Wednesbury Unreasonableness, Drink Driving Offences, Procedural Fairness
Criminal Law Administrative Law Exclusion of Evidence Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 Road Traffic Act 1988 Wednesbury Unreasonableness Drink Driving Offences Procedural Fairness

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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Director of Public Prosecutions

Claimant

Derek Preston

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Prosecutor's Appeal by Way of Case Stated / High Court Judgment on Appeal From Magistrates' Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether breaches of Code C of PACE justified exclusion of blood alcohol evidence under section 78 PACE
  2. 2 Whether the respondent comprehended the drink drive procedure
  3. 3 Whether the Magistrates' decision to exclude evidence was Wednesbury unreasonable

Ratio Decidendi

There was no evidence of a material breach of Code C or that the respondent did not comprehend the drink drive procedure; therefore, the Magistrates' exclusion of the blood alcohol evidence was Wednesbury unreasonable and not justified under section 78 PACE.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; case remitted for rehearing before a different Bench.

Orders

  • Case remitted to Magistrates for rehearing before a different Bench
  • Order for costs against Mr Preston, not to be enforced without leave of the court