QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
B e f o r e :
|THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF WAYNE HUNTLEY||(CLAIMANT)|
|DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS||(DEFENDANT)|
Smith Bernal Wordwave Limited
190 Fleet Street London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
THE DEFENDANT WAS NOT REPRESENTED AND DID NOT ATTEND
Crown Copyright ©
"(2) At the start of the trial the representative for the appellant, Mr Bennett, indicated to both the Prosecution and ourselves that no issue was to be taken with the Prosecution evidence up until the appellant arrived at Hornsey Police Station where the breath test procedure was to be conducted.
(3) Accordingly, the Prosecution read the statement of Police Constable Barry Macinnes, an officer present at the time of the appellant's arrest. The statement was read out in accordance with the provisions of section 9 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 and is attached as Annex 1.
(4) The Prosecution then called Sergeant Simmons who was present when the drink drive procedure at the police station was performed. Sergeant Simmons indicated that the lowest reading in breath was 47 micrograms in 100 millilitres of breath. Sergeant Simmons then gave evidence on the statutory blood/urine procedure which is not the subject of the questions posed by the appellant and he was not cross-examined by the appellant's representative.
(5) The final witness for the Prosecution was Sergeant Lee who had dealt with the drink drive procedure and again dealt with issues that are not subject to the questions posed by the appellant. The Prosecution then closed its case.
(6) Mr Bennett, the representative of the appellant, then made a submission of no case to answer on the basis that there had been no evidence adduced by the Prosecution that the appellant had been driving the motor vehicle. We were advised by our legal adviser, Mr Jansen, that the Prosecution had adduced such evidence by virtue of the appellant accepting the Prosecution's evidence in its entirety up to the procedure at the police station. The Prosecution then considered seeking leave to recall one of the officers but chose not to taking the view that sufficient evidence had been adduced to prove the appellant had been driving the vehicle.
(7) We rejected the appellant's submission and directed that there was a case to answer.
(8) Mr Bennett chose not to call the appellant and made the same submission as set out in paragraph 6 above ...
(10) The sole disputed fact for us to consider was whether there had been any evidence adduced that the appellant had been driving the vehicle. We gave the following reasons:
'The submission that was put before us was that there had been no evidence placed before the court today which proved that Mr Huntley was the driver of the vehicle on 9 June.
Having considered the Prosecution evidence, in particular the agreed section 9 statement of PC Macinnes, we find that it stated that PS Simmons had arrested Mr Huntley on suspicion of driving whilst having had too much to drink and not simply that he was arrested on suspicion of having had too much to drink'.
(11) We therefore found the appellant guilty of driving with excess alcohol as charged."
"ESD arrived and I then explained to Huntley that he was required to provide a specimen of breath as it was believed he was driving while having had too much to drink ...
He then provided me with a specimen of breath in the presence of PS Simmons and PC Moore. The test was positive and I was then made aware that PS Simmons had arrested the now accused on suspicion of driving whilst having had too much to drink and for providing a positive breath test."