Phipps, R v

Phipps, R v

The second prosecution for dangerous driving arose out of the same or substantially the same facts as the earlier prosecution for driving with excess alcohol. There were no special circumstances justifying the second prosecution. Therefore, the proceedings should have been stayed as an abuse of process and the conviction must be quashed.

Parties
Appellant: James Michael Phipps; Respondent: Regina (The Crown)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 January 2005
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
appeal allowed; conviction quashed
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Double Jeopardy, Dangerous Driving, Driving With Excess Alcohol
Criminal Law Procedure Abuse of Process Double Jeopardy Dangerous Driving Driving With Excess Alcohol

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 3 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

James Michael Phipps

Appellant

Regina (The Crown)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether it was an abuse of process to prosecute the appellant for dangerous driving after conviction for driving with excess alcohol arising from the same incident

Ratio Decidendi

The second prosecution for dangerous driving arose out of the same or substantially the same facts as the earlier prosecution for driving with excess alcohol. There were no special circumstances justifying the second prosecution. Therefore, the proceedings should have been stayed as an abuse of process and the conviction must be quashed.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed; conviction quashed

Orders

  • Conviction for dangerous driving quashed
  • No special circumstances to justify second prosecution