Crown Prosecution Service v Bate

Crown Prosecution Service v Bate

The Justices misapplied the legal test by treating intention to drive as an element of the offence rather than as part of the statutory defence. On the facts, the respondent was in charge of the vehicle, and the statutory defence should have been considered with the burden on the respondent.

Parties
Claimant: Crown Prosecution Service; Defendant: John Bate
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 November 2004
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal (case Stated) / Appeal From Magistrates' Court to High Court
Outcome
decision of Justices quashed; case remitted for rehearing before a different bench
Legal Topics
Driving Under the Influence, In Charge of a Motor Vehicle, Statutory Defence, Burden of Proof
Criminal Law Road Traffic Law Driving Under the Influence In Charge of a Motor Vehicle Statutory Defence Burden of Proof

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Crown Prosecution Service

Claimant

John Bate

Defendant

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent was 'in charge' of the vehicle under section 5(1)(b) Road Traffic Act 1988
  2. 2 Whether the Justices correctly applied the test in DPP v Watkins
  3. 3 Whether the statutory defence under section 5(2) was properly considered

Ratio Decidendi

The Justices misapplied the legal test by treating intention to drive as an element of the offence rather than as part of the statutory defence. On the facts, the respondent was in charge of the vehicle, and the statutory defence should have been considered with the burden on the respondent.

Court Disposition

decision of Justices quashed; case remitted for rehearing before a different bench

Orders

  • case remitted for rehearing before a different bench of Justices
  • no order as to costs