Longstaff v DPP
The failure to complete the procedure for taking a specimen of blood was not wrong in law, did not cause prejudice to the appellant, and did not deprive him of a fair trial. The officer was entitled to charge the appellant with failing to provide a specimen of breath after a medical opinion found no medical excuse. The failure to retain the mouthpiece did not deprive the appellant of a fair trial, and there was no abuse of process.
- Parties
- Claimant: Kelvin James Longstaff; Defendant: DPP
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 31 January 2008
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / High Court Appeal by Way of Case Stated
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Failure to Provide Specimen, Abuse of Process, Fair Trial Rights
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Kelvin James Longstaff
Claimant
DPP
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / High Court Appeal by Way of Case Stated
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether failure to complete the procedure for taking a specimen of blood was wrong in law and deprived the appellant of a fair trial
- 2 Whether failure to retain the mouthpiece deprived the appellant of a fair trial
- 3 Whether the proceedings should have been stayed as an abuse of process
Ratio Decidendi
The failure to complete the procedure for taking a specimen of blood was not wrong in law, did not cause prejudice to the appellant, and did not deprive him of a fair trial. The officer was entitled to charge the appellant with failing to provide a specimen of breath after a medical opinion found no medical excuse. The failure to retain the mouthpiece did not deprive the appellant of a fair trial, and there was no abuse of process.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal aid assessment if applicable
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment