Callander v DPP [2002] EWHC 1523 (Admin) (10 July 2002)

Callander v DPP [2002] EWHC 1523 (Admin) (10 July 2002)

The justices' decision to admit the prosecution's late-served expert evidence was not Wednesbury unreasonable. Both parties had expert witnesses familiar with the relevant device, both had opportunity to cross-examine, and the defence could have sought an adjournment if disadvantaged. There was no good reason to exclude the evidence.

Citation
[2002] EWHC 1523 (Admin)
Parties
Appellant: Richard Lewis Cameron Callander; Respondent: DPP
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 July 2002
Procedural Posture
Appeal by Way of Case Stated (criminal) / High Court (administrative Court) Judgment on Appeal From Magistrates' Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Road Traffic Offences, Admissibility of Expert Evidence, Procedural Fairness, Costs in Criminal Appeals
Criminal Law Administrative Law Road Traffic Offences Admissibility of Expert Evidence Procedural Fairness Costs in Criminal Appeals

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 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Richard Lewis Cameron Callander

Appellant

DPP

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal by Way of Case Stated (criminal) / High Court (administrative Court) Judgment on Appeal From Magistrates' Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Magistrates' Court's decision to admit late-served prosecution expert evidence was Wednesbury unreasonable under Rule 5 of the Magistrates Court (Advance Notice of Expert Evidence) Rules 1997
  2. 2 Whether the defence was disadvantaged by lack of expertise to challenge the prosecution's expert evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The justices' decision to admit the prosecution's late-served expert evidence was not Wednesbury unreasonable. Both parties had expert witnesses familiar with the relevant device, both had opportunity to cross-examine, and the defence could have sought an adjournment if disadvantaged. There was no good reason to exclude the evidence.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appellant to pay respondent's costs, subject to taxation and means test in the magistrates' court if appropriate