The Director of Public Prosecutions, R (on the application of) v Preston

The Director of Public Prosecutions, R (on the application of) v Preston

There was no evidence before the Magistrates to justify the conclusion that there was any material, substantial, or significant breach of Code C, nor any evidence to justify the conclusion that the respondent did not comprehend the drink drive procedure. The exclusion of the blood analysis evidence was therefore Wednesbury unreasonable and not justified under section 78 PACE.

Parties
Claimant: Director of Public Prosecutions; Respondent: Derek Preston
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 March 2003
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal (case Stated) / High Court Appeal From Magistrates' Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed; Magistrates' decision quashed; case remitted for rehearing before a different Bench; costs ordered against respondent but not to be enforced without leave of the court.
Legal Topics
Driving Under the Influence, Admissibility of Evidence, Police and Criminal Evidence Act, Breach of Police Codes, Wednesbury Unreasonableness
Criminal Law Administrative Law Driving Under the Influence Admissibility of Evidence Police and Criminal Evidence Act Breach of Police Codes Wednesbury Unreasonableness

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

Parties

Director of Public Prosecutions

Claimant

Derek Preston

Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether breaches of Code C of PACE entitled exclusion of blood analysis evidence under section 78 PACE
  2. 2 Whether the finding that the respondent did not comprehend the drink drive procedure was Wednesbury unreasonable
  3. 3 Whether the evidence of blood analysis was admissible

Ratio Decidendi

There was no evidence before the Magistrates to justify the conclusion that there was any material, substantial, or significant breach of Code C, nor any evidence to justify the conclusion that the respondent did not comprehend the drink drive procedure. The exclusion of the blood analysis evidence was therefore Wednesbury unreasonable and not justified under section 78 PACE.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; Magistrates' decision quashed; case remitted for rehearing before a different Bench; costs ordered against respondent but not to be enforced without leave of the court.

Orders

  • Decision of Magistrates quashed
  • Case remitted for rehearing before a different Bench