Director of Public Prosecutions v Tooze

Director of Public Prosecutions v Tooze

The magistrates erred in law by failing to apply the correct burden of proof under Section 15(3) of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. The burden was on the defendant to prove, on the balance of probabilities and with scientific evidence if necessary, that his post-driving consumption of alcohol accounted for the excess reading. As the defendant did not call such evidence and the justices found it likely he was over the limit when driving, there was no proper basis for acquittal. The appeal is allowed and the case remitted with a direction to convict.

Parties
Claimant: Director of Public Prosecutions; Defendant: Tooze
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 July 2007
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Magistrates' Court by Way of Case Stated
Outcome
appeal allowed; acquittal quashed; conviction directed
Legal Topics
Driving With Excess Alcohol, Burden of Proof, Post Driving Alcohol Consumption, Statutory Presumptions
Criminal Law Road Traffic Law Driving With Excess Alcohol Burden of Proof Post Driving Alcohol Consumption Statutory Presumptions

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

Director of Public Prosecutions

Claimant

Tooze

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Magistrates' Court by Way of Case Stated

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the magistrates applied the correct burden of proof under Section 15 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 when considering post-driving alcohol consumption
  2. 2 Whether the acquittal was proper in law given the findings of fact and absence of scientific evidence from the defendant

Ratio Decidendi

The magistrates erred in law by failing to apply the correct burden of proof under Section 15(3) of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. The burden was on the defendant to prove, on the balance of probabilities and with scientific evidence if necessary, that his post-driving consumption of alcohol accounted for the excess reading. As the defendant did not call such evidence and the justices found it likely he was over the limit when driving, there was no proper basis for acquittal. The appeal is allowed and the case remitted with a direction to convict.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed; acquittal quashed; conviction directed

Orders

  • Case remitted to the justices with a direction to enter a conviction against the respondent for driving with excess alcohol.