Dhaliwal, R (on the application of) v Director of Public Prosecutions Rev 1

Dhaliwal, R (on the application of) v Director of Public Prosecutions Rev 1

The court held that the prosecution was not required to prove the presence or quantity of preservative in the blood sample unless the defence specifically raised the issue. The analyst's evidence that she believed proper procedures were followed, based on laboratory records and supervision, was admissible and sufficient. The hearsay element was not relied upon to prove a contested fact, and no reasonable doubt was raised as to the reliability of the analysis. The appeal was dismissed.

Parties
Claimant: Dhaliwal; Defendant: Director of Public Prosecutions
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 March 2006
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Case Stated (criminal) / Appeal by Way of Case Stated
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Driving With Excess Alcohol, Hearsay Evidence, Forensic Evidence, Road Traffic Act Procedures
Criminal Law Administrative Law Driving With Excess Alcohol Hearsay Evidence Forensic Evidence Road Traffic Act Procedures

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dhaliwal

Claimant

Director of Public Prosecutions

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Case Stated (criminal) / Appeal by Way of Case Stated

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court erred in law in admitting hearsay evidence from the forensic scientist regarding the presence of preservative in the blood sample
  2. 2 Whether the prosecution must prove the presence and quantity of preservative in the blood sample for reliability of analysis

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the prosecution was not required to prove the presence or quantity of preservative in the blood sample unless the defence specifically raised the issue. The analyst's evidence that she believed proper procedures were followed, based on laboratory records and supervision, was admissible and sufficient. The hearsay element was not relied upon to prove a contested fact, and no reasonable doubt was raised as to the reliability of the analysis. The appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No order as to costs