QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
DIVISIONAL COURT
Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
MR JUSTICE OPENSHAW
____________________
THOMAS NEIL GOLDSMITH | Claimant | |
v | ||
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS | Defendant |
____________________
WordWave International Limited
A Merrill Communications Company
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 ©
"Was [the Deputy District Judge] correct in deciding that the assumption provided by section 15(2) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 prevented [her] from sentencing the appellant on the basis of a lower reading than that provided by the evidential test where there had been post-driving consumption of alcohol?"
This is a complex and clumsy sentence, but the point in issue is clear.
"(1)This section and section 16 of this Act apply in respect of proceedings for an offence under section 4 or 5 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (motor vehicles: drink and drugs); and expressions used in this section and section 16 of this Act have the same meaning as in sections 4 to 10 of that Act.
(2)Evidence of the proportion of alcohol or any drug in a specimen of breath, blood or urine provided by the accused shall, in all cases, be taken into account and, subject to subsection (3) below, it shall be assumed that the proportion of alcohol in the accused's breath, blood or urine at the time of the alleged offence was not less than in the specimen.
(3)If the proceedings are for an offence under section 5 of that Act or, where the accused is alleged to have been unfit through drink, for an offence under section 4 of that Act, that assumption shall not be made if the accused proves—
(a) that he consumed alcohol after he had ceased to drive, attempt to drive or be in charge of a motor vehicle on a road or other public place and before he provided the specimen, and
(b) that had he not done so the proportion of alcohol in his breath, blood or urine would not have exceeded the prescribed limit and, if the proceedings are for an offence under section 4 of that Act, would not have been such as to impair his ability to drive properly."
Subsections (4) and (5) are not relevant for this purpose.