QUEENS BENCH DIVISION
ON APPEAL FROM CITY OF
LONDON MAGISTRATES COURT
London, WC2A 2LL
B e f o r e :
MR JUSTICE NELSON
| ANN LESLEY KHATIBI
|- and -
|DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
Brian Kennedy (instructed by Crown Prosecution Service) for the Respondent
Crown Copyright ©
Mr Justice Nelson:
The hearings at the Magistrates Court.
"Having listened carefully to the evidence we are satisfied that the correct procedure for testing blood has been followed. We accept the evidence from Dr Wall that the blood sample was divided and sealed in the presence of the Defendant. It is not disputed that Mrs Khatibi, the Defendant, had been driving on the night of 12 November 2001. She failed a roadside breath test and agreed to go to Snow Hill Police Station for a second breath test, which she also failed. She then consented to have a blood test.
We are also satisfied that the phial labelled with Mrs Khatibi's name and analysed at the forensic science laboratory at Chorley, contained a sample of her blood.
We have been referred to the case of Paterson v DPP. We are able to distinguish this case because the facts show clear discrepancies in the evidence, which gave rise to doubts about the blood samples.
In this case (the Appellant's case), however, the details on the label of the phial support the evidence of PC Lee and Dr Wall.
We therefore accept that the sample analysed was that of Mrs Khatibi."
"(i) After retiring to consider our verdict, were we right to adjourn the case for the purpose of hearing further evidence and then doing so?
(ii) Were we right to continue with the trial after adjourning it for five months?
(iii) Was there evidence upon which a reasonable bench, properly directing itself, could have found that the blood analysed by Mr Robinson was that of the Appellant."
(i). The adjournment to hear further evidence.
In similar vein Lord Justice Simon Brown (as he then was) said in the case of Antonio Leeson Divisional Court unreported 26 July 1999:-
"..this is a case in which the defence stood by watching the point develop, carefully avoiding any hint in the defence, yet alone any challenge, which might conceivably have alerted the prosecution to their failure to comply strictly with all the niceties of those proceedings. I do not say that the defence are bound to remind the prosecution of all matters that require to be proved, but I do say that they can hardly complain if, in the result, Justices exercise their discretion so as to secure justice rather than allow a totally unmeritorious acquittal."
"As a general rule and in the absence of some special circumstances, it would certainly be wholly wrong for the Justices to purport to exercise their discretion to allow evidence to be called once they had retired, and, indeed probably after the defence had closed their case."
(iii). The continuity point.
Lord Justice May: