Woolfe v DPP

Woolfe v DPP

The statutory meaning of 'breath' under the Road Traffic Act 1988 and Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 includes breath contaminated by regurgitated alcohol, and regurgitation and reabsorption do not amount to further consumption under the statute. However, the Magistrates’ Court erred in law by concluding that the appellant's medical condition could not amount to special reasons merely because it did not amount to a defence. The case is remitted for reconsideration of special reasons.

Parties
Appellant: Robert Woolfe; Respondent: DPP
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 June 2006
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal by Case Stated From Magistrates’ Court to Divisional Court
Outcome
case remitted for reconsideration of special reasons
Legal Topics
Driving Under the Influence, Breathalyser Evidence, Special Reasons, Interpretation of Statutory Terms
Criminal Law Road Traffic Law Driving Under the Influence Breathalyser Evidence Special Reasons Interpretation of Statutory Terms

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

Criminal Appeal / Appeal by Case Stated From Magistrates’ Court to Divisional Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether 'breath' under section 5 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and section 15 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 includes breath contaminated by regurgitated alcohol
  2. 2 Whether 'consume' under section 15(3) of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 includes regurgitation and reabsorption of alcohol
  3. 3 Whether the appellant's medical condition could amount to special reasons not to disqualify

Ratio Decidendi

The statutory meaning of 'breath' under the Road Traffic Act 1988 and Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 includes breath contaminated by regurgitated alcohol, and regurgitation and reabsorption do not amount to further consumption under the statute. However, the Magistrates’ Court erred in law by concluding that the appellant's medical condition could not amount to special reasons merely because it did not amount to a defence. The case is remitted for reconsideration of special reasons.

Court Disposition

case remitted for reconsideration of special reasons

Orders

  • Case remitted to the Magistrates’ Court for reconsideration of special reasons in accordance with the guidance of the Divisional Court.