Director of Public Prosecutions v Carless

Director of Public Prosecutions v Carless

Section 15(2) of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, as amended, permits the admissibility of blood samples obtained with consent even if not taken in connection with the alleged offence, distinguishing the present case from Howard v Hallett; thus, the magistrates erred in excluding the evidence as inadmissible as a matter of law.

Parties
Claimant: Director of Public Prosecutions; Defendant: Robert Cavin Carless
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 April 2005
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal (case Stated) / Appeal From Magistrates' Court Decision
Outcome
prosecutor's appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Evidence, Driving With Excess Alcohol, Statutory Interpretation
Criminal Law Road Traffic Law Admissibility of Evidence Driving With Excess Alcohol Statutory Interpretation

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Director of Public Prosecutions

Claimant

Robert Cavin Carless

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal (case Stated) / Appeal From Magistrates' Court Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a blood sample obtained with consent before the defendant was suspected of a driving offence is admissible to prove excess alcohol under section 15 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 as amended
  2. 2 Whether the magistrates were correct to exclude the blood analysis evidence taken when the defendant was believed to be a crime victim

Ratio Decidendi

Section 15(2) of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, as amended, permits the admissibility of blood samples obtained with consent even if not taken in connection with the alleged offence, distinguishing the present case from Howard v Hallett; thus, the magistrates erred in excluding the evidence as inadmissible as a matter of law.

Court Disposition

prosecutor's appeal allowed

Orders

  • Matter remitted to the same bench of magistrates to continue hearing the information in light of this judgment.
  • No order as to costs.