Taylor v Director of Public Prosecutions

Taylor v Director of Public Prosecutions

The Justices were entitled to find that the officer had reasonable cause to believe the breath device had not produced a reliable indication due to the significant discrepancy and machine printout, and were also entitled to conclude to the criminal standard that the blood analysed was that of the appellant despite the minor serial number discrepancy.

Parties
Claimant: Martin Taylor; Defendant: Director of Public Prosecutions
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 October 2009
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal by Way of Case Stated / High Court Appeal From Magistrates' Court Conviction
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; conviction upheld
Legal Topics
Driving With Excess Alcohol, Evidential Continuity, Reasonable Cause for Blood Specimen, Interpretation of Road Traffic Act
Criminal Law Road Traffic Law Driving With Excess Alcohol Evidential Continuity Reasonable Cause for Blood Specimen Interpretation of Road Traffic Act

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Martin Taylor

Claimant

Director of Public Prosecutions

Defendant

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the officer had reasonable cause to require a blood specimen after breath test discrepancy
  2. 2 Whether there was admissible evidence to prove the blood analysed was that of the appellant

Ratio Decidendi

The Justices were entitled to find that the officer had reasonable cause to believe the breath device had not produced a reliable indication due to the significant discrepancy and machine printout, and were also entitled to conclude to the criminal standard that the blood analysed was that of the appellant despite the minor serial number discrepancy.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; conviction upheld