Director of Public Prosecutions v Thornley

Director of Public Prosecutions v Thornley

Failure to strictly comply with section 20(8) of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 does not preclude admissibility of evidence from a prescribed device if it is properly produced and proved in the conventional manner.

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Claimant: Director of Public Prosecutions; Defendant: John Robert Thornley
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 February 2006
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal by Way of Case Stated
Outcome
appeal upheld
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Evidence, Prescribed Devices, Service Requirements, Speeding Offences
Criminal Law Traffic Law Admissibility of Evidence Prescribed Devices Service Requirements Speeding Offences

Source-derived case record

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Director of Public Prosecutions

Claimant

John Robert Thornley

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal by Way of Case Stated

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether failure to comply with section 20(8) of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 precludes admissibility of evidence from a prescribed device
  2. 2 Whether evidence from a prescribed device can be admitted in another way if service requirements are not met

Ratio Decidendi

Failure to strictly comply with section 20(8) of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 does not preclude admissibility of evidence from a prescribed device if it is properly produced and proved in the conventional manner.

Court Disposition

appeal upheld

Orders

  • matter remitted to Magistrates' Court for rehearing
  • no order as to costs