Woolfe v DPP [2006] EWHC 1497 (Admin) (23 June 2006)

Woolfe v DPP [2006] EWHC 1497 (Admin) (23 June 2006)

The statutory term 'breath' includes breath contaminated by regurgitated alcohol, so the readings from the intoximeter are valid for the purposes of section 5 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. Regurgitation and reabsorption do not amount to 'consumption' for the purposes of the 'hip flask' defence. The Magistrates erred in law by excluding the possibility of 'special reasons' solely because the medical condition did not amount to a defence; the issue of special reasons must be reconsidered.

Citation
[2006] EWHC 1497 (Admin)
Parties
Appellant: Robert Woolfe; Respondent: DPP
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 June 2006
Procedural Posture
Appeal by Case Stated (criminal) / Divisional Court Judgment on Appeal From Magistrates' Court
Outcome
Partially allowed; remitted to Magistrates' Court for reconsideration of special reasons.
Legal Topics
Drink Driving, Breathalyser Evidence, Interpretation of 'breath' and 'consume', Special Reasons for Non Disqualification
Criminal Law Road Traffic Law Drink Driving Breathalyser Evidence Interpretation of 'breath' and 'consume' Special Reasons for Non Disqualification

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 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robert Woolfe

Appellant

DPP

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal by Case Stated (criminal) / Divisional Court Judgment on Appeal From Magistrates' Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether 'breath' in section 5 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 includes breath contaminated by regurgitated alcohol
  2. 2 Whether 'consume' in section 15(3) of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 includes regurgitation and reabsorption
  3. 3 Whether medical condition (regurgitation/reflux) can amount to 'special reasons' to avoid disqualification

Ratio Decidendi

The statutory term 'breath' includes breath contaminated by regurgitated alcohol, so the readings from the intoximeter are valid for the purposes of section 5 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. Regurgitation and reabsorption do not amount to 'consumption' for the purposes of the 'hip flask' defence. The Magistrates erred in law by excluding the possibility of 'special reasons' solely because the medical condition did not amount to a defence; the issue of special reasons must be reconsidered.

Court Disposition

Partially allowed; remitted to Magistrates' Court for reconsideration of special reasons.

Orders

  • Case remitted to the Magistrates' Court for reconsideration of special reasons for non-disqualification in accordance with the guidance of the Divisional Court.