Magee v Crown Prosecution Service

Magee v Crown Prosecution Service

A defendant cannot rely on a genuine belief that no accident occurred as a defence to failing to provide details under section 170(2) Road Traffic Act 1988 if that belief is induced by voluntary intoxication; intoxication does not negate the duty imposed by the statute.

Parties
Appellant: Magee; Respondent: Crown Prosecution Service
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 October 2014
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal by Way of Case Stated
Outcome
conviction upheld
Legal Topics
Failure to Stop After Accident, Driving Under Influence, Intoxication as Defence, Reporting Accidents, Burden of Proof
Criminal Law Road Traffic Law Failure to Stop After Accident Driving Under Influence Intoxication as Defence Reporting Accidents 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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Magee

Appellant

Crown Prosecution Service

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal by Way of Case Stated

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether genuine belief that no accident occurred negates duty to provide details under section 170(2) Road Traffic Act 1988
  2. 2 Whether intoxication-induced belief can be relied upon as a defence
  3. 3 Distinction between knowledge of accident and knowledge of allegation

Ratio Decidendi

A defendant cannot rely on a genuine belief that no accident occurred as a defence to failing to provide details under section 170(2) Road Traffic Act 1988 if that belief is induced by voluntary intoxication; intoxication does not negate the duty imposed by the statute.

Court Disposition

conviction upheld

Orders

  • conviction stands